محمدرضا نگاهی

The concept of peer correction in foreign language teaching has been a dominant concern in recent years due to the increased consideration of learner-centered curricula. The researchers have concluded that active engagement happens when learners have to think and correct each other. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of peer correction on the pronunciation improvement of Iranian EFL learners in oral productions. To do this, two research questions were raised, and 60 participants were carefully chosen from among English language learning students at a private language school. By assigning a PET test, they were divided into two groups. In the peer correction group (experimental group), the participants corrected each other's pronunciation errors, and for the control group, learners’ errors were corrected by the teacher. This process continued for 20 sessions. A pre-test and a post-test were administered. The results showed that there is a significant difference in the pronunciation of the peer correction group compared to the other group, and the peer correction group outperformed the teacher correction group. It can be concluded that there is a direct relationship between using the peer corrective feedback method of correcting pronunciation and learners' pronunciation improvement in EFL classes.

Despite extensive studies concerning written error correction, it is imperative that more research be conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of error correction on improving L2 writing. Driven by this gap, this study aimed to examine whether unfocused direct and indirect types of written corrective feedback had any impact on the writing accuracy of the Iranian English language learners’ new compositions. Through the random matching technique, ninety Iranian English language learners from seven foreign language centers in southwestern Iran were split into two groups for treatment and one group for control. As part of the evaluation, a writing test was utilized to determine whether the learners had improved their writing accuracy due to the treatment. The results showed that the participants in both treatment groups improved their writing accuracy, though the learning gains from both treatment were not significantly different. This study concludes with some implications for teachers regarding their use of appropriate types of written error correction.