نمونه پاورپوینت زبان انگلیسی

صفحه 1:
iS Ka Universi English ‏مه‎ Faculty of Humanities Title: The differential effect of oral and written corrective feedback in mixedeiovePctasses epahi by: Parvin Meshkini 

صفحه 2:
TABLE OF CONTENTS introduction Literature “Methodology Discussion Conclusion 

صفحه 3:
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTIO 2 0 ‏ٍِ«"«"«اآاصاآاآ‎ Oo 

صفحه 4:
6 2 ‏ده‎ n ۹۹ Introductio peice ta Methodolo Discussi ‏متكساعمو6‎ ‏ال‎ 25-2 Feedback has an important role in most theories about teaching a second language (L2) and language pedagogy. It contributes to both structural and communicative approaches of a foreign language class (Ellis, 2009) There are various opinions on the effectiveness of corrective feedback among scientists who search for second language acquisition The first group believe that corrective feedback is a great method for learners .to understand things that are not possible to learn in the target language On the other hand, there is a second group who believe the competence of learners can be initiated with primary linguistic data and correcting the students in a class is not useful (Havranek, 2002). Moreover, correcting students is not the only aspect of the feedback in an L2 class. The second language learning classes can be in mixed levels and have gender issues ت۱۷ 

صفحه 5:
‎Methodolo Discussi Conclusio‏ ات8 ا 0 لك 7 6 — ‎Beyond the act of error correction itself, feedback in L2 classrooms intersects with broader pedagogical dynamics, particularly those related to learner diversity. Mixed-level classes often present additional challenges for instructors, as learners differ not only in proficiency but also in cognitive and ‎affective variables—including gender ‎Given these differences, it becomes essential to tailor feedback strategies to .account for both gender and proficiency level ‎As such, the present study aims to examine the differential impact of oral and written corrective feedback in mixed-gender, mixed-level language classrooms. By focusing on how feedback interacts with learner gender and class composition, this study hopes to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of effective teaching strategies in diverse L2 learning -environments ‎ANI ‎ ‎27 

صفحه 6:
Literatu Methodolo Discussi Conclusio re gy on n Statement of the 17 ‏جممه چ لح چم‎ Many notes cannot be taught to students directly from learning materials; instead, tasks, developed communications, and corrective feedback are appropriate methods of imnartina knowledae On the one hand, L2 learners' inability to speak and communicate effectively is hampered by their limited language proficiency. Due to the data from their first language, L2 students typically misinterpret the notes and translate wards for wards. which leads ta nooar Simply teaching a second language to students is not enough to improve their proficiency in it. Teachers should find it difficult to deal with the varying effects of corrective feedback, particularly in classes with mixed levels and younger students. 

صفحه 7:
Literatu Methodolo Discussi Conclusio re gy on n Statement of the Prohlam Because intermediate English learners lack the confidence to voice their opinions in class and because mixed-level classes face the problem of students acting ridiculed, oral corrective feedback can demotivate learners and encourage misbehaviour among peers. Though it may have less of an impact on students' accuracy, written corrective feedback can still boost students' confidence and motivation. The way the corrective feedback is implemented is another issue. The way a teacher teaches can have a greater impact than whether it is written or spoken, and this is something that should be managed. 

صفحه 8:
Introductio Literatu Methodolo Discussi Conclusio n- re oy on n Objectives of the ۱ ۱ Study To investigate au analyze the students’ effects of tendency to face corrective corrective 0 feedback on the feedback 1 learning process of mixed-level To consider the To 8 the differential 0 key factors in the effects of written 3 effectiveness of and oral feedback feedback independently 

صفحه 9:
Introductio Literatu Methodolo Discussi Conclusio n re gy on n ۳ 1) Do female students in mixed-level Research Questions language classes receive more corrective feedback than male students? : corrective 2) Does the type of corrective feedback (written vs. oral) differently affect ne 8 emotional responses (e.g., confidence ‎or anxiety) in male and female‏ ۰ ۳ ها ‎students? 5 Does oral corrective feedback have a ‎more negative impact on motivation in lower-proficiency learners compared to written feedback? ‏م ‎Soe ‎4 ‎۱ ‎4) Is there a significant relationship between students' gender and their preference for a specific type of corrective feedback (written or oral)? ‎ 

صفحه 10:
Introductio Literatu UCT 1 ‏نا‎ Conclusio — 26 2 coy 0 Students in mixed-level language classes who receive written corrective feedback will demonstrate significantly higher improvement in motivation scores ‏ا ل ل ل ا‎ AIT PUMA mete recoive aral foodhack Tailoring written corrective feedback based on students' personality traits (e.g., introversion vs. extroversion) will result in at least a 15% higher performance in post-test ecarec camnarod ta a unifarm foadhack annraach Learners who receive written corrective feedback will 5 show a 20% higher increase in grammatical accuracy scores on writing tasks compared to those receiving oral ‏.عاعدطلعع1‎ ‏شا‎ ‎۲ 10-1 

صفحه 11:
Literatu Methodolo Discussi Conclusio re gy on n Significance of the 0 c.Mastering a second language comes with its own set of obstacles, and surmounting these challenges can significantly boost students' learning and comprehension. It is crucial to not only identify these hurdles but also to devise effective strategies for tackling them. In a mixed- gender L2 classroom, instructors must be mindful of how they respond to students’ errors, as it can have a profound impact on their motivation (Delija et al., 2013). Both overly critical feedback and neglecting to address mistakes can impede students' progress (Meihami & Meihami, 2013). Therefore, it is imperative to understand the unique effects of providing corrective feedback in mixed-level English classes in order to determine the most appropriate approaches. 

صفحه 12:
Literatu Methodolo Discussi Conclusio re gy on n Limitations and A not nlinnialons the difficulty in isolating the specific impact of oral versus written feedback across a heterogeneous population of learners. Although the study limits variability by controlling participants’ nationality, age range (18 to 24 years), and language proficiency level (intermediate, as determined by a standardized :۳8 ل ل ۳۳۵۷09 Exposure Learning Tee a to Context Feedback Variability Types By clearly defining the study boundaries—including participant demographics, instructional conditions, and measurement tools—this research aims to increase internal validity. However, external validity may still be limited, and caution should be exercised when generalizing findings to other educational settings or learner populations. 

صفحه 13:
CHAPTER 7 Ws ral ‏تکار‎ ‎— 1111 PL Fs a 

صفحه 14:
Discussi Conclusio on n Methodolo gy Introductio n Previous Studies on Corrective Feedback in Mixed- Result Later studies, such as those by Sheen (2007) and Ellis et al. (2006), began exploring how different feedback types affect learners at varying proficiency levels, revealing that beginner learners often benefit more from explicit correction, whereas more advanced learners respond better to metalinguistic and indirect forms of feedback. In contrast, advanced learners showed more sustained improvement when feedback was delivered in an unfocused but metalinguistically rich format. Ferris (2002) also emphasized the importance of tailoring written feedback to learners’ readiness levels, advocating for a learner-centered pproach that considers both cognitive Naftamant and amnitinnal rarantiiutty Level Classes Subject types of oral corrective feedback and examined their effectiveness in Lyster and 199 Ranta 7 eliciting learner uptake demonstrated that focused written feedback Bitchener 201 AS Particularly effective in improving grammatical accuracy among lower- intermediate learne, ‏دیس ی‎ and Knoch 0 

صفحه 15:
Introductio Methodolo Discussi Conclusio n gy on n Previous Studies on Corrective Feedback in Mixed- Level Classes Research Yea Pitti} (tei ۵۲ Ou examined the effects of oral found that learners’ uptake 200 CF in heterogeneous varied not only with the type of Havranek 2 classrooms feedback but also with their individual language backgrounds and error awareness. found that pairing higher- proficiency learners with lower-proficiency peers not only supported the latter’s These findings align with sociocultural theories of learning, which emphasize the role of interaction and mediation 2 development through in linguistic development, scaffolding but also particularly within the zone of reinforced the former’s proximal development metalinguistic awareness Satoand 201 Lyster 

صفحه 16:
Introductio Methodolo Discussi Conclusio n gy on n Conclusi This study aims to address these gaps by investigating the differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in mixed-level classrooms. By examining how these feedback types influence learners with varying levels of proficiency, the study seeks to provide actionable insights for language educators. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of tailoring feedback strategies to accommodate individual learner needs, thereby promoting inclusivity and equity in language education. The theoretical framework underpinning this research draws on established SLA theories, such as Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis, Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory, and Long’s Interaction Hypothesis, which collectively highlight the mechanisms through which feedback supports language development. By applying these frameworks to the context of mixed-level classrooms, the study seeks to expand their scope and relevance, [۳ ۱ ‏رف ی ی‎ get orn iy addressing the unique challenges of mixed-level classrooms, it aims to provide teachers with evidence-based strategies for delivering effective feedback that meets the needs of all learners. Additionally, it contributes to the broader field of SLA by deepening our understanding of how oral and written feedback can be optimized to foster language development in complex and dynamic classroom settings. The findings of this research are expected to enhance the quality of language education, supporting learners in achieving their full potential regardless of their starting proficiency level. 

صفحه 17:
CHAPTER 3 2/۳22 cs 1 ES METHODOLOG 3 be Kec 

صفحه 18:
‘Discussi Conclusio ‏نوس‎ on n 7 | The combination of these approaches allows This study adopts for the a quasi- measurement of experimental feedback’s mixed-methods effectiveness on design, integrating language development and the exploration of Jearners’ perceptions and attitudes poward both quantitative and qualitative approaches to provide a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. Introductio Literatu Methodolo n re ’) Research “ Design A The research design of this study is structured to investigate the differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback on learners in mixed- level classrooms. 

صفحه 19:
Introductio Literatu Discussi Conclusio n re on n Quasi-Experimental Design A quasi-experimental design is employed due to the natural setting of mixed-level classrooms, where random assignment of participants to experimental groups is not feasible. Instead, intact classes are used, and participants are grouped based on their exposure to oral or written corrective feedback. This design ensures ecological validity by maintaining the real-world context of the study while still allowing for controlled comparisons between the two feedback types. 19 

صفحه 20:
‘Discussi Conclusio— on n o The qualitative component Coq Cac ‏ار‎ ‎attitudes toward the feedback types. ات ا یا ون ات( ‎questionnaires with open-ended‏ ‎questions are used to collect rich,‏ ‎descriptive data about learners’‏ كن ‎aK mc‏ ا ا ا الا ‎identify patterns and themes in the ‎qualitative data, providing insights into the subjective aspects of ‎ ‎Introductio Literatu n re Mixed-Methods Approach ‎o The quantitative aspect of the study focuses on measuring the impact of feedback on learners’ grammatical accuracy and lexical development. ‎ ‎o Pre-tests and post-tests are administered to assess changes in linguistic following exposure to oral or written feedback. ‎o Statistical analyses, such as paired t-tests and ANOVA, are ‎ ‎ 

صفحه 21:
Introductio Literatu Methodo! Discussi Conclusio n re ‏لس وه‎ on n Comparative Analysis of Feedback Types 1s is the assignments after task completion. 

صفحه 22:
Introductio Literatu Discussi Conclusio n re on n Alignment with Research Objectives 1. Measurement of the effectiveness of feedback types on linguistic outcomes. 2. Exploration of learners’ attitudes and preferences regarding feedback. 3. Contextualization of findings within the challenges and opportunities of mixed-level classrooms. 

صفحه 23:
Conclusio n Balances the need for experiment al control with the practical constraints of educational research. Discussi on Literatu re Introductio n justification for the Design Accommod ates the heterogene ity of mixed-level classrooms by using intact groups. 0 Maintains the natural classroom environmen enhancing the مقا وريه ‎of‏ faudings to real-world teaching. 

صفحه 24:
Introductio Literatu Methodolo Discussi Conclusio n re ‏بو‎ on n * The target population * A purposive sampling method includes learners enrolled in was used to select ESL classes at a language participants, ensuring institute or university. These representation across learners range from beginner proficiency levels. (A1) to advanced (C1) proficiency levels, based on * To maintain the natural the Common European classroom setting, intact Framework of Reference for classes were selected, and Languages (CEFR). learners were grouped according to the type of * The population encompasses feedback they received (oral learners from varied or written). demographic backgrounds, including different-ages, 

صفحه 25:
Introductio Literatu n re Participant Groups Oral Feedback Group EE es * This group received * This group received real-time oral corrective written corrective feedback during feedback on their classroom interactions. written assignments after task completion. hod Discussi Conclusio on n * The group included learners from mixed * Like the oral feedback proficiency levels, group, this group enabling the study to included learners across explore how oral varying proficiency feedback impacts levels. diverse learners. 

صفحه 26:
Conclusio— n ‎Exclusion Criteria‏ فا ‎Learners actively enrolled * Learners with prior‏ * ‎in mixed-level ESL classes. knowledge or specific ‎training in corrective ‎* Proficiency level feedback strategies to ‎determined by a placement minimize pre-existing test aligned with CEFR biases. ‎standards. ‎* Participants who missed more than two feedback jz 3 ۱ / sessions during the study AS ‎ ‎ 

صفحه 27:
Introductio Literatu di Discussi Conclusio n re on n Rationale for Participant Selection The selection of mixed-level learners reflects the study’s focus on exploring corrective feedback in diverse classroom environments. By including learners from various proficiency levels, the study aims to uncover how feedback impacts individuals differently, providing insights into its adaptability and effectiveness. The equal distribution of participants across the two feedback groups ensures balanced comparisons, while the inclusion criteria ensure consistency and reliability in the data collected. 

صفحه 28:
Introductio Literatu di Discussi Conclusio n re on n Research Setting This study was conducted in mixed-level English as a Second Language (ESL) classrooms within a language institute that offers programs to learners of varying proficiency levels. The setting was chosen to ensure authenticity and relevance to real-world language learning environments, where learners often represent diverse backgrounds and skill levels. 

صفحه 29:
Discussi Conclusio n Pre-tests were administered in the first week, followed by a 6- week intervention period, and post- tests were conducted in the final week.z on Introductio Literatu n re Schedule and Duration Feedback The stud interventions s feds were integrated ‏ی‎ with into regular learners classroom attending ensuring, ‏یی‎ ۱ minimal sessions ‏تست‎ to gress instructional flow. 

صفحه 30:
Discusselevaseaas the Settmg on ¢ The setting reflects the real-world challenges and opportunities of teaching in mixed-level classrooms, where learners require differentiated support to address their unique needs. ¢ By situating the study in an authentic educational environment, the findings are expected to have greater ecological validity and applicability to similar re Teacher Involvement ٠ The classes were taught by experienced ESL instructors who were trained to provide consistent oral and written corrective feedback according to the study’s protocols. ۰ Teachers followed a structured feedback delivery plan, ensuring uniformity in how feedback was provided across the oral and written! ‏ی‎ Literatu Introductio * i ‏موی و‎ Learning Activities * Classroom activities included a mix of individual tasks, pair work, and group activities designed to target various language skills such as grammar, vocabulary, and writing. ¢ Oral corrective feedback was provided during communicative tasks and speaking activities, while written feedback was delivered on assignments and written exercises. 

صفحه 31:
Introductio Literatu n re 1 Discussi Conclusio on n Ethical Considerations in the ae ‏م‎ Regular nines Measures monitoring briefed were taken was ahoutsthe to ensure conducted to ert ‏مط‎ ensure that objectives confidential the feedback eal ity of interventions provided participants _ did not — iaformed and the interfere with ‏اد ووه‎ integrity of the learners’ “rotors cate the learning overall 6011 process. educational experience. 

صفحه 32:
6۳00 ‘Discussi Conclusio— ‏مه‎ on n n this study employed a combination of instruments designed to assess learners' grammatical accuracy, lexical development, and overall language proficiency, as well as their perceptions of corrective feedback. The instruments included pre-tests and post-tests, written assignments, feedback logs, and qualitative tools such as 

صفحه 33:
Discussi Conclusio Procedure This section outlines the step-by-step process undertaken in the study to investigate the differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in mixed-level classrooms. The procedure includes preparation, intervention, data collection, and analysis phases. R&tionuie:foer Institesient 1 Selection ۴ The combination of quantitative and qualitative instruments ensured a holistic approach to data collection. The pre-tests and post-tests provided measurable evidence of learners’ linguistic progress, while the questionnaires and interviews offered deeper insights into their subjective experiences. The use of feedback logs ensured consistency and transparency in the feedback process, aligning with the study’s focus on __examining the effects of oral —_ and written feedback in mixedaaey==y 

صفحه 34:
Introductio Literatu Discussi Conclusio n re on n Data Collection and Quankegungptation + Pre-test and post- test scores were recorded for statistical analysis. Qualitative Data: * Questionnaire responses were collected and categorized. ٠ Feedback logs documented the nature and frequency of + Audio recordings of interviews were transcribed for thematic analysis. ay 

صفحه 35:
Conclusio n Discussi on Qualitative Analysis: Thematic analysis was conducted on interview transcripts and open- ended questionnaire responses to identify recurring patterns and insights into learner perceptions. Introductio Literatu n re Data Analysis Phase Quantitative Analysis: Statistical techniques, including paired t-tests and ANOVA, were used to compare pre-test and post-test results across groups. The effectiveness of oral and written feedback on grammatical and lexical development was evaluated. 

صفحه 36:
Discussi Conclusio Introductio ‏ها‎ ‎on n n This set Basiftlines the methods and procedures used to analyze the quantitative and qualitative data collected during the study. The analysis aims to evaluate the differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback on learners' grammatical accuracy, lexical development, and overall language proficiency, as well as to feedback. Ey 

صفحه 37:
CHAPTER 27 ۳2 DISCUSSION. 3 00 5 

صفحه 38:
Introductio Literatu Methodolo Conclusio n re gy n 5 2 Descriptive Statistics of Pre-Test and Post- Descriptive Tact Conrac Statistics Comparison of Improvement Across Feedback Ty Begimer 45 58 13 Intermedia Q 72 12 te Advanced 75 84 9 Beginner 46 60 14 Intermedia 62 75 13 te e Advanced 77 85 8 

صفحه 39:
Introductio Literatu Methodolo Conclusio n re gy n Descriptive Statistics 1.Both feedback groups showed improvement from pre-test to post-test across all proficiency levels. 2.Beginners had the highest improvement scores, with written feedback leading to slightly better gains. 3.Intermediate learners benefited significantly from both feedback types, showing similar improvements. 4.Advanced learners showed the least improvement, possibly due to their already high proficiency levels. 5.Written feedback yielded slightly higher improvements overall, particularly for beginner learners. These descriptive statistics provide a foundation for further statistical analyses, including within-group and between-group comparisons, to determine the significance of these improvements. 

صفحه 40:
Introductio Literatu Methodolo Discussi Conclusio n re gy — ‏بیسسس‎ n Within-Group Comparisons (Pre-test vs. Post-test) The comparison between the oral and written feedback groups was conducted using an independent t-test to determine whether there were significant differences in language improvement across the two feedback types. The statistical test yielded a t-value of -0.23 and a p-value of 0.83, indicating that there was no statistically significant difference between the performance improvements of the two groups. This suggests that both oral and written corrective feedback were equally effective in facilitating language development. 

صفحه 41:
Discussi ‏عص-‎ Impact of Proficiency Level on Feedback Effectiveness (ANOVA) To analyze whether proficiency level had a significant interaction effect with feedback type, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. The results indicate that: + There was a significant main effect of proficiency level on language improvement (F(2,57)=4.32,p<0.05F(2, 57) = 4.32, p < 0.05). + No significant interaction effect between feedback type and proficiency level was found (p>0.05p > 0.05), suggesting that the effectiveness of feedback was relatively stable across different learner aroups. Interpretation of Findings The findings of this study offer valuable insights into the differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback on language learners at varying proficiency levels in mixed-level classrooms. The analysis of pre-test and post- test scores, alongside learners’ perceptions, indicates that both feedback types contribute significantly to language development, albeit in different ways. The overall improvements observed in both groups demonstrate the effectiveness of corrective feedback in fostering grammatical accuracy and lexical development. However, the magnitude and nature of these improvements vary depending on learners’ proficiency levels and the mode of 

صفحه 42:
Conclusio Comparison of Feedback Clarity Across Proficiency Levels Beginner 3.8 4.0 Intermedia 4.1 4.2 te Advanced 4.3 4.1 Beginner 4.5 4.6 Intermedia 4.2 4.3 16 Methodolo gy n Introductio Literatu n re Qualitative Data 

صفحه 43:
on. n Interpretation of Findings 1.Clarity of Feedback: + Learners across all proficiency levels rated written feedback as clearer than oral feedback. ٠ The highest clarity score (4.5) was reported by beginners receiving written feedback, suggesting that written corrections allow learners to process and review mistakes at their own pace. + Oral feedback clarity improved as proficiency levels increased, possibly because advanced learners have stronger listening skills and can process spoken corrections more efficiently. Methodolo Discussi Conclusio gy 50 55 60 70 65 Literatu re eres con See) 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.6 4.3 4.2 Introductio یتست عم ‎Enea‏ ‏3.8 ‏4.1 ‏4.3 4.5 n Beginner oo 8 pk) es) Advanced 

صفحه 44:
Introductio Literatu Methodolo Conclusio n re gy n Interpretation of Findings 2. Usefulness of Feedback: + Written feedback was perceived as slightly more useful than oral feedback across all proficiency levels. + Beginners rated written feedback as most useful (4.6/5), reinforcing the idea that written corrections provide structured, long-term learning benefits. + Intermediate and advanced learners found both types of feedback almost equally useful, indicating that they might be able to incorporate corrections regardless of the mode in which they are delivered. + A clear preference for written feedback was observed among beginners (70%) and intermediate learners (65%). + Advanced learners showed a more balanced preference, with 60% favoring oral feedback, possibly due to their need for real-time correction during communication. + The higher preference for written feedback among lower proficiency learners aligns with their need for explicit, revisitable feedback to support their learning process. 

صفحه 45:
Introductio Literatu Methodolo Conclusio n re gy n oMany learners appreciated the ability to revisit written corrections multiple times, making it easier to internalize grammatical rules and lexical improvements. oSome learners noted that written feedback felt less intimidating and gave them the confidence to reflect on their mistakes privately. 0A few advanced learners mentioned that written feedback helped them refine their academic writing skills, making it particularly beneficial for formal communication. 2. Benefits of Oral Feedback: 3. Challenges in Feedback Reception: 0 Learners who preferred oral feedback 0 Some learners expressed difficulty in highlighted the importance of immediate processing oral corrections during fast-paced Correction in improving thelv speaking fluency, conversations, particularly beginners who 0 Some learners found oral feedback more struggled with comprehension. ——__ engaging as it allowed for direct interaction 0 A few learners mentioned that receiving oral ‘with teachers, leading to a better feedback in front of peers sometimes felt ‏ودا همات مسو‎ of their mistake? uncomfortable, making them more self- 0A few participants pointed out that oral conscious about making mistakes. feedback improved their pronunciation and 0 While written feedback was generally well- Ahontaneots speaking ability) making it received, some learners stated that they particularly useful for real-world sometimes struggled to understand ‘Conversations. 

صفحه 46:
Introductio Literatu Methodolo Conclusio n re gy n Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings (Data Triangulation) Data triangulation involves integrating findings Irom multiple sources to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under study. In this research, triangulation is applied by comparing the quantitative data (pre-test and post-test scores) with qualitative data (questionnaire responses and interviews) to identify patterns, validate results, and explore possible discrepancies. By synthesizing these two data types, this section aims to provide a deeper insight into how oral and written corrective feedback impact learners' grammatical accuracy, lexical development, and perceptions in mixed-level classrooms. The quantitative data revealed that both oral and written feedback significantly improved learners’ grammatical and lexical proficiency, though written feedback yielded slightly higher improvement scores, particularly among beginners. However, the qualitative findings provide additional context, suggesting thatlearners’ experiences, preferences, 

صفحه 47:
Conclusio n Integrating Feedback into Classroom Activities Methodolo gy Addressing Learner Anxiety and Motivation Introductio Literatu n re Differentiat ‏و ادك‎ aa Immediate Feedback Neen Reflective Approaches Learning The triangulation of quantitative and qualitative findings confirms that both oral and written corrective feedback contribute significantly to language learning, though their effectiveness varies depending on learner characteristics and learning contexts. Written feedback is generally preferred by beginners due to its clarity and permanence, whereas oral feedback is valued by advanced learners for its immediacy and real-time interaction. The affective dimension of feedback also plays a crucial role, with some learners experiencing anxiety from oral corrections while others appreciate its interactive nature. 

صفحه 48:
CHAPTER 5 ۲ ayy ۳72 CONCLUSIO ‏ا الح ل‎ 5 

صفحه 49:
Introductio Literatu Methodolo Discussi n re gy on The study's results confirm that both oral and written corrective feedback significantly contribute to language development, but their effectiveness varies depending on learner proficiency levels and the nature of the feedback itself. One of the most striking findings was that beginner learners showed greater improvement in grammatical accuracy and lexical development when receiving written feedback. This supports the Noticing Hypothesis, which suggests that explicit feedback enhances language learning by drawing learners' attention to specific errors. Written feedback allows beginners to process corrections at their own pace, review them multiple times, and apply learned structures in subsequent tasks. Unlike oral feedback, which is often ephemeral, written feedback provides a tangible reference that aids in memory retention and deeper cognitive processing. Another key observation was the role of feedback in developing autonomy and self- regulation. Many learners expressed appreciation for written feedback because it allowed them to reflect on their errors independently and track their progress over time. This aligns with Self-Regulated Learning Theory, which emphasizes the importance of metacognition in language learning. Learners who actively engaged with their feedback, revisited corrections, and implemented them in future tasks showed more sustained improvement compared to those who passively received HERA ran ae These find: 

صفحه 50:
Introductio Literatu Methodolo Discussi n re gy on Pedagogical Tananlianntiana Y One of the most significant takeaways is that corrective feedback should be differentiated based on learners’ proficiency levels. Y For beginner learners, written feedback should be prioritized as it provides clear, structured, and revisitable corrections. Y For intermediate learners, a blended feedback approach may be most effective. ’ For advanced learners, oral feedback should be emphasized, particularly in communicative and fluency-building activities. Y Another key implication is the need to consider emotional factors in feedback delivery. Finally, the study underscores the importance of learner autonomy in processing feedback. Encouraging students to actively engage with their feedback—whether by keeping error logs, revisiting written corrections, or practicing self-correction strategies in oral tasks—can enhance retention and long-term improvement. Teachers can foster this by incorporating self-reflection activities, where learners analyze their common mistakes and set goals for improvement. ‏تم‎ 

صفحه 51:
Introductio Literatu Methodolo Discussi Con io n re gy on Study Limitations A third limitation is the reliance on self-reported data from questionnaires and interviews to assess learners’ perceptions. While these methods provide valuable qualitative insights, they are subject to biases such as selective recall and social desirability. One limitation is the 1 ‏نها ال یه‎ short duration of the ‏ی هر‎ ‏د‎ ecologically valid , on short-term may not fully capture 1010 ‏ا ك5‎ the variability of grammatica @ accuracy and lexical 3 real-world language development. Use: 

صفحه 52:
1 Literatu Methodolo Discussi 9 2 0 9 ‏گر لك‎ 53 First, longitudinal studies are needed to investigate the long-term impact of oral and written feedback on language development. Examining how learners retain and apply feedback over several months or even years would provide deeper insights into its affantivanace Second, future research should explore the role of technology in delivering corrective feedback ‘ith the increasing use of digital learning platforms, it would be beneficial to study how automated feedback tools, Al-driven corrections, and interactive feedback systems comnare to traditional oral and written feedback methods. Third, additional studies could investigate individual differences in feedback processing, such as working memory capacity, learning styles, and personality traits. Understanding how cognitive and psychological factors influence feedback reception could help educators design more personalized feedback strategies. 

صفحه 53:
Introductio Literatu Methodolo Discussi Conclusio 12 ‏لك 2 نت‎ Conclusion This study provides strong evidence that both oral and written corrective feedback play crucial roles in second language learning, though their effectiveness varies based on proficiency level, cognitive processing abilities, and learner preferences. Written feedback is ۷ beneficial for beginners, as it provides explicit corrections that can be reviewed multiple times. Oral feedback, meanwhile, is more effective for advanced learners who benefit from real-time interaction and communicative adjustments. The Biudynshighlightse tbgnittapoeimetionaf, amalanothgational aspects of feedback, educators dendheekestrahes itetaivptisnizpoiaaajngidutcamascentered feedback practices. A hybrid feadtibeet eyetcdassroeeayrating both oral and written corrections, appears to be the most effective strategy, ensuring that learners receive feedback that aligns with their developmental needs and language goals. Ultimately, the findings underscore the dynamic nature of language learning and the need for adaptive, responsive teaching methods that cater to diverse learners. By refining feedback strategies, educators can better support language learners in achieving higher 

صفحه 54:
Thanks for your attention 37 

Alborz University English Teaching Department, Faculty of Humanities Title: The differential effect of oral and written corrective feedback Supervisor: Dr. Davood in mixed-level classes Sepahi by: Parvin Meshkini 1404 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction 2 Literature 3 Methodology 4 Discussion 5 Conclusion CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTIO N 3 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Feedback has an important role in most theories about teaching a second language (L2) and language pedagogy. It contributes to both structural and .communicative approaches of a foreign language class (Ellis, 2009) There are various opinions on the effectiveness of corrective feedback among .scientists who search for second language acquisition The first group believe that corrective feedback is a great method for learners .to understand things that are not possible to learn in the target language On the other hand, there is a second group who believe the competence of learners can be initiated with primary linguistic data and correcting the students in a class is not useful (Havranek, 2002). Moreover, correcting students is not the only aspect of the feedback in an L2 class. The second language learning classes can be in mixed levels and have gender issues inside. I 4 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Beyond the act of error correction itself, feedback in L2 classrooms intersects with broader pedagogical dynamics, particularly those related to learner diversity. Mixed-level classes often present additional challenges for instructors, as learners differ not only in proficiency but also in cognitive and .affective variables—including gender Given these differences, it becomes essential to tailor feedback strategies to .account for both gender and proficiency level As such, the present study aims to examine the differential impact of oral and written corrective feedback in mixed-gender, mixed-level language classrooms. By focusing on how feedback interacts with learner gender and class composition, this study hopes to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of effective teaching strategies in diverse L2 learning .environments 5 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Statement of the Problem Many notes cannot be taught to students directly from learning materials; instead, tasks, developed communications, and corrective feedback are appropriate methods of imparting knowledge On the one hand, L2 learners' inability to speak and communicate effectively is hampered by their limited language proficiency. Due to the data from their first language, L2 students typically misinterpret the notes and translate words for words, which leads to poor Simply teaching a second language to students is not communication. enough to improve their proficiency in it. Teachers should find it difficult to deal with the varying effects of corrective feedback, particularly in classes with mixed levels and younger students. 6 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Statement of the Problem Because intermediate English learners lack the confidence to voice their opinions in class and because mixed-level classes face the problem of students acting ridiculed, oral corrective feedback can demotivate learners and encourage misbehaviour among peers. Though it may have less of an impact on students' accuracy, written corrective feedback can still boost students' confidence and motivation. The way the corrective feedback is implemented is another issue. The way a teacher teaches can have a greater impact than whether it is written or spoken, and this is something that should be managed. 7 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Objectives of the Study To investigate students’ tendency to face corrective feedback To consider the differential effects of written and oral feedback independently 0 1 0 2 0 4 0 3 8 Conclusio n To analyze the effects of corrective feedback on the learning process of mixed-level classes To explore the key factors in the effectiveness of feedback Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n 1) Do female students in mixed-level language classes receive more corrective feedback than male students? 2) Does the type of corrective feedback (written vs. oral) differently affect emotional responses (e.g., confidence or anxiety) in male and female students? 3) Does oral corrective feedback have a more negative impact on motivation in lower-proficiency learners compared to written feedback? Research Questions 4) Is there a significant relationship between students' gender and their preference for a specific type of corrective feedback (written or oral)? 9 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Research Hypotheses 1 2 3 Students in mixed-level language classes who receive written corrective feedback will demonstrate significantly higher improvement in motivation scores (measured by a standardized scale) than those who receive oral feedback. Tailoring written corrective feedback based on students' personality traits (e.g., introversion vs. extroversion) will result in at least a 15% higher performance in post-test scores compared to a uniform feedback approach. Learners who receive written corrective feedback will show a 20% higher increase in grammatical accuracy scores on writing tasks compared to those receiving oral feedback. 10 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Significance of the Mastering a second language comes with its own set of Study obstacles, and surmounting these challenges can significantly boost students' learning and comprehension. It is crucial to not only identify these hurdles but also to devise effective strategies for tackling them. In a mixedgender L2 classroom, instructors must be mindful of how they respond to students' errors, as it can have a profound impact on their motivation (Delija et al., 2013). Both overly critical feedback and neglecting to address mistakes can impede students' progress (Meihami & Meihami, 2013). Therefore, it is imperative to understand the unique effects of providing corrective feedback in mixed-level English classes in order to determine the most appropriate approaches. 11 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Limitations and Delimitations A notable limitation is the difficulty in isolating the specific impact of oral versus written feedback across a heterogeneous population of learners. Although the study limits variability by controlling participants’ nationality, age range (18 to 24 years), and language proficiency level (intermediate, as determined by a standardized Previous pre-test), other confounding variables remain. These include: Teacher Bias Exposure to Feedback Types Learning Context Variability By clearly defining the study boundaries—including participant demographics, instructional conditions, and measurement tools—this research aims to increase internal validity. However, external validity may still be limited, and caution should be exercised when generalizing findings to other educational settings or learner populations. 12 CHAPTER 2 LITERATUR E 13 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Previous Studies on Corrective Feedback in MixedLevel Classes Researcher Yea r Subject types of oral corrective feedback and examined their effectiveness in eliciting learner uptake Result Later studies, such as those by Sheen (2007) and Ellis et al. (2006), began exploring how different feedback types affect learners at varying proficiency levels, revealing that beginner learners often benefit more from explicit correction, whereas more advanced learners respond better to metalinguistic and indirect forms of feedback. Lyster and Ranta 199 7 Bitchener and Knoch In contrast, advanced learners showed more demonstrated that sustained improvement when feedback was focused written feedback delivered in an unfocused but was particularly effective metalinguistically rich format. Ferris (2002) 201 in improving also emphasized the importance of tailoring 0 grammatical accuracy written feedback to learners’ readiness among lowerlevels, advocating for a learner-centered intermediate learners approach that considers both cognitive 14 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Previous Studies on Corrective Feedback in MixedLevel Classes Research er Havranek Sato and Lyster Yea r 200 2 201 2 Subject Result examined the effects of oral CF in heterogeneous classrooms found that learners’ uptake varied not only with the type of feedback but also with their individual language backgrounds and error awareness. found that pairing higherproficiency learners with lower-proficiency peers not only supported the latter’s development through scaffolding but also reinforced the former’s metalinguistic awareness These findings align with sociocultural theories of learning, which emphasize the role of interaction and mediation in linguistic development, particularly within the zone of proximal development 15 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Conclusi This study aims to address these gaps by investigating the differential effects of oral and on written corrective feedback in mixed-level classrooms. By examining how these feedback types influence learners with varying levels of proficiency, the study seeks to provide actionable insights for language educators. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of tailoring feedback strategies to accommodate individual learner needs, thereby promoting inclusivity and equity in language education. The theoretical framework underpinning this research draws on established SLA theories, such as Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis, Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory, and Long’s Interaction Hypothesis, which collectively highlight the mechanisms through which feedback supports language development. By applying these frameworks to the context of mixed-level classrooms, the study seeks to expand their scope and relevance, contributing to a deeper understanding of how feedback operates in diverse learning environments. In conclusion, this study holds significant implications for both theory and practice. By addressing the unique challenges of mixed-level classrooms, it aims to provide teachers with evidence-based strategies for delivering effective feedback that meets the needs of all learners. Additionally, it contributes to the broader field of SLA by deepening our understanding of how oral and written feedback can be optimized to foster language development in complex and dynamic classroom settings. The findings of this research are expected to enhance the quality of language education, supporting learners in achieving their full potential regardless of their starting proficiency level. 16 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOG Y 17 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Research Design The research design of this study is structured to investigate the differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback on learners in mixedlevel classrooms. This study adopts a quasiexperimental mixed-methods design, integrating both quantitative and qualitative approaches to provide a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. 18 Conclusio n The combination of these approaches allows for the measurement of feedback’s effectiveness on language development and the exploration of learners’ perceptions and attitudes toward the feedback provided. Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Quasi-Experimental Design A quasi-experimental design is employed due to the natural setting of mixed-level classrooms, where random assignment of participants to experimental groups is not feasible. Instead, intact classes are used, and participants are grouped based on their exposure to oral or written corrective feedback. This design ensures ecological validity by maintaining the real-world context of the study while still allowing for controlled comparisons between the two feedback types. 19 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Mixed-Methods Approach Conclusio n Qualitative Component Quantitative Component o The qualitative component explores learners’ perceptions and attitudes toward the feedback types. o The quantitative aspect of the study focuses on measuring the impact of feedback on learners' grammatical accuracy and lexical development. o Semi-structured interviews and questionnaires with open-ended questions are used to collect rich, descriptive data about learners’ experiences. o Pre-tests and post-tests are administered to assess changes in linguistic performance following exposure to oral or written feedback. o Statistical analyses, such as paired t-tests and ANOVA, are used to compare the outcomes across groups and identify Discussi on o Thematic analysis is conducted to identify patterns and themes in the qualitative data, providing insights into the subjective aspects of feedback reception. 20 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Comparative Analysis of Feedback Types The study’s primary focus is the comparative analysis of oral and written feedback. Each group receives a different feedback type on their language errors: • The oral feedback group receives real-time corrections and reformulations during classroom interactions. • The written feedback group receives corrections and comments on written assignments after task completion. 21 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Alignment with Research Objectives 1. Measurement of the effectiveness of feedback types on linguistic outcomes. 2. Exploration of learners’ attitudes and preferences regarding feedback. 3. Contextualization of findings within the challenges and opportunities of mixed-level classrooms. 22 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Justification for the Design Maintains the natural Accommod classroom ates the environmen heterogene t, ity of enhancing mixed-level the classrooms applicabilit by using y of intact findings to groups. real-world teaching. 23 Discussi on Conclusio n Balances the need for experiment al control with the practical constraints of educational research. Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Population and Sampling Population Sampling Method • The target population includes learners enrolled in ESL classes at a language institute or university. These learners range from beginner (A1) to advanced (C1) proficiency levels, based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). • The population encompasses learners from varied demographic backgrounds, including different ages, • A purposive sampling method was used to select participants, ensuring representation across proficiency levels. • To maintain the natural classroom setting, intact classes were selected, and learners were grouped according to the type of feedback they received (oral or written). 24 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Participant Groups Written Feedback Group Oral Feedback Group • This group received real-time oral corrective feedback during classroom interactions. • The group included learners from mixed proficiency levels, enabling the study to explore how oral feedback impacts • This group received written corrective feedback on their written assignments after task completion. 25 • Like the oral feedback group, this group included learners across varying proficiency levels. Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria • Learners actively enrolled in mixed-level ESL classes. • Learners with prior knowledge or specific training in corrective feedback strategies to minimize pre-existing biases. • Proficiency level determined by a placement test aligned with CEFR standards. 26 • Participants who missed more than two feedback sessions during the study Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Rationale for Participant Selection The selection of mixed-level learners reflects the study’s focus on exploring corrective feedback in diverse classroom environments. By including learners from various proficiency levels, the study aims to uncover how feedback impacts individuals differently, providing insights into its adaptability and effectiveness. The equal distribution of participants across the two feedback groups ensures balanced comparisons, while the inclusion criteria ensure consistency and reliability in the data collected. 27 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Research Setting This study was conducted in mixed-level English as a Second Language (ESL) classrooms within a language institute that offers programs to learners of varying proficiency levels. The setting was chosen to ensure authenticity and relevance to real-world language learning environments, where learners often represent diverse backgrounds and skill levels. 28 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Schedule and Duration The study spanned 8 weeks, with learners attending three 90minute sessions per week. Feedback interventions were integrated into regular classroom activities, ensuring minimal disruption to the instructional flow. 29 Pre-tests were administered in the first week, followed by a 6week intervention period, and posttests were conducted in the final week.z Introductio n Literatu re Learning Activities • Classroom activities included a mix of individual tasks, pair work, and group activities designed to target various language skills such as grammar, vocabulary, and writing. • Oral corrective feedback was provided during communicative tasks and speaking activities, while written feedback was delivered on assignments and written exercises. Methodolo gy Teacher Involvement Relevance of Discussi Conclusio on n Setting • The classes were taught by experienced ESL instructors who were trained to provide consistent oral and written corrective feedback according to the study’s protocols. • Teachers followed a structured feedback delivery plan, ensuring uniformity in how feedback was provided across the oral and written groups. 30 the • The setting reflects the real-world challenges and opportunities of teaching in mixed-level classrooms, where learners require differentiated support to address their unique needs. • By situating the study in an authentic educational environment, the findings are expected to have greater ecological validity and applicability to similar Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Ethical Considerations in the Setting Participants Measures were were taken briefed to ensure about the the study confidential objectives ity of and participants provided and the informed integrity of consent the learning before data process. collection. 31 Discussi on Conclusio n Regular monitoring was conducted to ensure that the feedback interventions did not interfere with the learners’ overall educational experience. Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Instruments To collect reliable and valid data, this study employed a combination of instruments designed to assess learners' grammatical accuracy, lexical development, and overall language proficiency, as well as their perceptions of corrective feedback. The instruments included pre-tests and post-tests, written assignments, feedback logs, and qualitative tools such as questionnaires and interviews. 32 Introductio Literatu Rationale for Instrument n Selection re Methodolo gy The combination of quantitative and qualitative instruments ensured a holistic approach to data collection. The pre-tests and post-tests provided measurable evidence of learners’ linguistic progress, while the questionnaires and interviews offered deeper insights into their subjective experiences. The use of feedback logs ensured consistency and transparency in the feedback process, aligning with the study’s focus on examining the effects of oral and written feedback in mixed- Discussi on Conclusio n Procedure This section outlines the step-by-step process undertaken in the study to investigate the differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in mixed-level classrooms. The procedure includes preparation, intervention, data collection, and analysis phases. 33 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Data Collection and Documentation Quantitative Data: Discussi on Conclusio n Qualitative Data: • Pre-test and posttest scores were recorded for statistical analysis. • Questionnaire responses were collected and categorized. • Feedback logs documented the nature and frequency of feedback provided. • Audio recordings of interviews were transcribed for thematic analysis. 34 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Data Analysis Phase Quantitative Analysis: Qualitative Analysis: Statistical techniques, including paired t-tests and ANOVA, were used to compare pre-test and post-test results across groups. Thematic analysis was conducted on interview transcripts and openended questionnaire responses to identify recurring patterns and insights into learner perceptions. The effectiveness of oral and written feedback on grammatical and lexical development was evaluated. 35 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Data Analysis Discussi on Conclusio n This section outlines the methods and procedures used to analyze the quantitative and qualitative data collected during the study. The analysis aims to evaluate the differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback on learners' grammatical accuracy, lexical development, and overall language proficiency, as well as to explore their perceptions of the feedback. 36 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION 37 Introductio n Descriptive Statistics Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Descriptive Statistics of Pre-Test and PostTest Scores Group Proficienc Pre- Post- Improv y Level Test Test ement Mean Mean Beginner 45 58 13 Oral Intermedia 60 72 12 Feedback te Oral Advanced 75 84 9 Beginner 46 60 14 Written Intermedia 62 75 13 Feedback te 77 85 8 Oral Feedback Feedback Written Feedback Written 38 Advanced Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Descriptive Statistics 1.Both feedback groups showed improvement from pre-test to post-test across all proficiency levels. 2.Beginners had the highest improvement scores, with written feedback leading to slightly better gains. 3.Intermediate learners benefited significantly from both feedback types, showing similar improvements. 4.Advanced learners showed the least improvement, possibly due to their already high proficiency levels. 5.Written feedback yielded slightly higher improvements overall, particularly for beginner learners. These descriptive statistics provide a foundation for further statistical analyses, including within-group and between-group comparisons, to determine the significance of these improvements. 39 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Within-Group Comparisons (Pre-test vs. Post-test) The comparison between the oral and written feedback groups was conducted using an independent t-test to determine whether there were significant differences in language improvement across the two feedback types. The statistical test yielded a t-value of -0.23 and a p-value of 0.83, indicating that there was no statistically significant difference between the performance improvements of the two groups. This suggests that both oral and written corrective feedback were equally effective in facilitating language development. Between-Group Comparisons (Oral vs. Written Feedback) Independent t-tests were used to compare the effectiveness of oral and written feedback across the three proficiency levels. The results showed that: • Beginner learners in the written feedback group outperformed those in the oral feedback group (p<0.05p < 0.05). • Intermediate learners showed no significant difference between oral and written feedback (p>0.05p > 0.05). • Advanced learners performed similarly in both feedback types, with minor variations (p>0.05p > 0.05). These findings suggest that written feedback may be more beneficial for lower proficiency learners, while oral feedback is equally effective across all levels. 40 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Impact of Proficiency Level on Feedback Effectiveness (ANOVA) To analyze whether proficiency level had a significant interaction effect with feedback type, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. The results indicate that: • There was a significant main effect of proficiency level on language improvement (F(2,57)=4.32,p<0.05F(2, 57) = 4.32, p < 0.05). • No significant interaction effect between feedback type and proficiency level was found (p>0.05p > 0.05), suggesting that the effectiveness of feedback was relatively stable across different learner groups. Interpretation of Findings The findings of this study offer valuable insights into the differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback on language learners at varying proficiency levels in mixed-level classrooms. The analysis of pre-test and posttest scores, alongside learners' perceptions, indicates that both feedback types contribute significantly to language development, albeit in different ways. The overall improvements observed in both groups demonstrate the effectiveness of corrective feedback in fostering grammatical accuracy and lexical development. However, the magnitude and nature of these improvements vary depending on learners' proficiency levels and the mode of 41 Introductio n Literatu re Qualitative Data Analysis Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Comparison of Feedback Clarity Across Proficiency Levels Feedback Proficiency Clarity Usefulness Type Level (Mean (Mean Score Score /5) /5) Beginner 3.8 4.0 Oral Intermedia 4.1 4.2 Feedback te Oral Advanced 4.3 4.1 Beginner 4.5 4.6 Written Intermedia 4.2 4.3 Feedback te Oral Feedback Feedback Written Feedback 42 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Qualitative Data Analysis Feedback Proficiency Clarity Usefulness Preference Type Level (Mean (Mean (%) Score /5) Score /5) Beginner 3.8 4.0 50 Oral Intermedia Feedback te 4.1 4.2 55 Oral Advanced 4.3 4.1 60 Beginner 4.5 4.6 70 Written Intermedia Feedback te 4.2 4.3 65 Written Advanced 4.4 4.2 62 Feedback Feedback Written Feedback Feedback Conclusio n Interpretation of Findings Learners’ Perceptions of Oral and Written Feedback Oral Discussi on 1.Clarity of Feedback: • Learners across all proficiency levels rated written feedback as clearer than oral feedback. • The highest clarity score (4.5) was reported by beginners receiving written feedback, suggesting that written corrections allow learners to process and review mistakes at their own pace. • Oral feedback clarity improved as proficiency levels increased, possibly because advanced learners have stronger listening skills and can process spoken corrections more efficiently. 43 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Interpretation of Findings 2. Usefulness of Feedback: • Written feedback was perceived as slightly more useful than oral feedback across all proficiency levels. • Beginners rated written feedback as most useful (4.6/5), reinforcing the idea that written corrections provide structured, long-term learning benefits. • Intermediate and advanced learners found both types of feedback almost equally useful, indicating that they might be able to incorporate corrections regardless of the in whichfor they are delivered. 3.mode Preference Feedback Type: • A clear preference for written feedback was observed among beginners (70%) and intermediate learners (65%). • Advanced learners showed a more balanced preference, with 60% favoring oral feedback, possibly due to their need for real-time correction during communication. • The higher preference for written feedback among lower proficiency learners aligns with their need for explicit, revisitable feedback to support their learning process. 44 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Findings from Interviews 1. Advantages of Written Feedback: o Many learners appreciated the ability to revisit written corrections multiple times, making it easier to internalize grammatical rules and lexical improvements. o Some learners noted that written feedback felt less intimidating and gave them the confidence to reflect on their mistakes privately. o A few advanced learners mentioned that written feedback helped them refine their academic writing skills, making it particularly beneficial for formal communication. 2. Benefits of Oral Feedback: o Learners who preferred oral feedback highlighted the importance of immediate correction in improving their speaking fluency. o Some learners found oral feedback more engaging as it allowed for direct interaction with teachers, leading to a better understanding of their mistakes. o A few participants pointed out that oral feedback improved their pronunciation and spontaneous speaking ability, making it particularly useful for real-world 45 conversations. 3. Challenges in Feedback Reception: o Some learners expressed difficulty in processing oral corrections during fast-paced conversations, particularly beginners who struggled with comprehension. o A few learners mentioned that receiving oral feedback in front of peers sometimes felt uncomfortable, making them more selfconscious about making mistakes. o While written feedback was generally wellreceived, some learners stated that they sometimes struggled to understand corrections without additional teacher Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings (Data Triangulation) Data triangulation involves integrating findings from multiple sources to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under study. In this research, triangulation is applied by comparing the quantitative data (pre-test and post-test scores) with qualitative data (questionnaire responses and interviews) to identify patterns, validate results, and explore possible discrepancies. By synthesizing these two data types, this section aims to provide a deeper insight into how oral and written corrective feedback impact learners' grammatical accuracy, lexical development, and perceptions in mixed-level classrooms. The quantitative data revealed that both oral and written feedback significantly improved learners’ grammatical and lexical proficiency, though written feedback yielded slightly higher improvement scores, particularly among beginners. However, the qualitative findings provide additional context, suggesting that learners’ experiences, preferences, and affective responses influence46how they engage with each type of Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Interpreting the Findings Differentiat ed Feedback Approaches Balancing Immediate vs. Reflective Learning Addressing Learner Anxiety and Motivation Integrating Feedback into Classroom Activities The triangulation of quantitative and qualitative findings confirms that both oral and written corrective feedback contribute significantly to language learning, though their effectiveness varies depending on learner characteristics and learning contexts. Written feedback is generally preferred by beginners due to its clarity and permanence, whereas oral feedback is valued by advanced learners for its immediacy and real-time interaction. The affective dimension of feedback also plays a crucial role, with some learners experiencing anxiety from oral corrections while others appreciate its interactive nature. 47 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIO N 48 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Interpretation of Findings The study's results confirm that both oral and written corrective feedback significantly contribute to language development, but their effectiveness varies depending on learner proficiency levels and the nature of the feedback itself. One of the most striking findings was that beginner learners showed greater improvement in grammatical accuracy and lexical development when receiving written feedback. This supports the Noticing Hypothesis, which suggests that explicit feedback enhances language learning by drawing learners' attention to specific errors. Written feedback allows beginners to process corrections at their own pace, review them multiple times, and apply learned structures in subsequent tasks. Unlike oral feedback, which is often ephemeral, written feedback provides a tangible reference that aids in memory retention and deeper cognitive processing. Another key observation was the role of feedback in developing autonomy and selfregulation. Many learners expressed appreciation for written feedback because it allowed them to reflect on their errors independently and track their progress over time. This aligns with Self-Regulated Learning Theory, which emphasizes the importance of metacognition in language learning. Learners who actively engaged with their feedback, revisited corrections, and implemented them in future tasks showed more sustained improvement compared to those who passively received 49 feedback. These findings suggest that encouraging learners to take an active role in Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Pedagogical Implications  One of the most significant takeaways is that corrective feedback should be differentiated based on learners’ proficiency levels.  For beginner learners, written feedback should be prioritized as it provides clear, structured, and revisitable corrections.  For intermediate learners, a blended feedback approach may be most effective.  For advanced learners, oral feedback should communicative and fluency-building activities. be emphasized, particularly in  Another key implication is the need to consider emotional factors in feedback delivery. Finally, the study underscores the importance of learner autonomy in processing feedback. Encouraging students to actively engage with their feedback—whether by keeping error logs, revisiting written corrections, or practicing self-correction strategies in oral tasks—can enhance retention and long-term improvement. Teachers can foster this by incorporating self-reflection activities, where learners analyze their common mistakes and set goals for improvement. 50 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Study Limitations A third limitation is the reliance on self-reported data from questionnaires and interviews to assess learners’ perceptions. While these methods provide valuable qualitative insights, they are subject to biases such as selective recall and social desirability. One limitation is the short duration of the study, which focused on short-term improvements in grammatical accuracy and lexical development. 1 2 3 51 Another limitation is the classroom-based setting, which, while ecologically valid, may not fully capture the variability of real-world language use. Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Recommendations for Future Research First, longitudinal studies are needed to investigate the long-term impact of oral and written feedback on language development. Examining how learners retain and apply feedback over several months or even years would provide deeper insights into its effectiveness. Second, future research should explore the role of technology in delivering corrective feedback. With the increasing use of digital learning platforms, it would be beneficial to study how automated feedback tools, AI-driven corrections, and interactive feedback systems compare to traditional oral and written feedback methods. Third, additional studies could investigate individual differences in feedback processing, such as working memory capacity, learning styles, and personality traits. Understanding how cognitive and psychological factors influence feedback reception could help educators design more personalized feedback strategies. 52 Introductio n Literatu re Methodolo gy Discussi on Conclusio n Conclusion This study provides strong evidence that both oral and written corrective feedback play crucial roles in second language learning, though their effectiveness varies based on proficiency level, cognitive processing abilities, and learner preferences. Written feedback is particularly beneficial for beginners, as it provides explicit corrections that can be reviewed multiple times. Oral feedback, meanwhile, is more effective for advanced learners who benefit from real-time interaction and communicative adjustments. The study highlights the importance of and balancing By considering the cognitive, emotional, motivational aspects of feedback, educators feedback to optimize learning outcomes can createstrategies more effective, supportive, and learner-centered feedback practices. A hybrid in mixed-level classrooms. feedback approach, integrating both oral and written corrections, appears to be the most effective strategy, ensuring that learners receive feedback that aligns with their developmental needs and language goals. Ultimately, the findings underscore the dynamic nature of language learning and the need for adaptive, responsive teaching methods that cater to diverse learners. By refining feedback strategies, educators can better support language learners in achieving higher levels of proficiency, accuracy, and communicative competence. 53 Thanks for your attention 54