---
title: "The Effects of Mobile-mediated Explicit and Implicit Feedback"
description: "The study asks whether written corrective feedback sent through a phone messenger helps Iranian EFL learners use English… 74 references."
authors: ["Danial Babajani Azizi", "Nourollah Gharanjik, Mr.", "Mahmood Dehqan, Dr."]
year: 2022
venue: "Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition 8"
source: "https://journals.us.edu.pl/index.php/TAPSLA/article/view/11943"
doi: "10.31261/tapsla.11943"
licence: "CC BY-SA (journal licence per DOAJ; Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition)"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/azizi-2022-effects-mobile-mediated-explicit-implicit/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/azizi-2022-effects-mobile-mediated-explicit-implicit/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2022](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2022/page/9/) / The Effects of Mobile-mediated Explicit and Implicit Feedback onThe Effects of Mobile-mediated Explicit and Implicit Feedback on EFL Learners’ Use of English Prepositions EFL Learners’ Use of English Prepositions

# The Effects of Mobile-mediated Explicit and Implicit Feedback onThe Effects of Mobile-mediated Explicit and Implicit Feedback on EFL Learners’ Use of English Prepositions EFL Learners’ Use of English Prepositions

**Authors:** Danial Babajani Azizi, Nourollah Gharanjik, Mr. and Mahmood Dehqan, Dr. · **Year:** 2022 · **Venue:** Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition 8 · **Publisher:** [University of Silesia in Katowice](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/university-of-silesia-in-katowice/) · **Licence:** [CC BY-SA (journal licence per DOAJ; Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.31261/tapsla.11943) · [PDF](https://journals.us.edu.pl/index.php/TAPSLA/article/download/11943/10958) · [DOI 10.31261/tapsla.11943](https://doi.org/10.31261/tapsla.11943) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W4290926435)

**Citations:** 0 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14)

## Summary
The study asks whether written corrective feedback sent through a phone messenger helps Iranian EFL learners use English prepositions of manner and movement, and whether explicit or implicit correction works better. Earlier work mostly looked at prepositions of time and place and often used one-off feedback sessions. Here, 60 learners were split at random into three WhatsApp groups of 20: two treatment groups and one control group. One treatment group received explicit feedback, with the correct form written above an underlined error. The other received implicit feedback, where the error was only underlined. Learners took a pre-test, were taught about the target errors, and corrected their writing over several feedback rounds. They then sat an immediate post-test and a delayed post-test. Both feedback groups reduced their errors significantly and kept those gains two weeks later. The control group started out stronger but did not change. The two feedback types did not differ from each other. The authors argue that repeated, mobile-delivered feedback is a practical classroom tool.

## Key points
- 60 Iranian EFL learners were divided at random into three WhatsApp groups, each with 20 members: explicit feedback, implicit feedback and control.
- The explicit condition supplied the correct form above the underlined error, while the implicit condition only underlined the error.
- The design was quasi-experimental: pre-test, then multiple feedback sessions on several pieces of writing, then an immediate post-test and a delayed post-test about two weeks later.
- Both treatment groups improved significantly (p \< .05), and Scheffe post-hoc comparisons confirmed their error reduction. The control group, despite a higher pre-test score, showed essentially no change.
- No meaningful gap was found between explicit and implicit feedback. The listed limitations are a small sample, only two feedback types, and no questionnaires or interviews about learners' experience.

## Interesting ideas
- Gains were measured twice, right after treatment and again after a pause, so short-lived improvement could be told apart from retained learning.
- An untreated control group stayed flat even though it began ahead, which shows that improvement came from the intervention and not from the starting level.
- The two conditions differed only in how much the correction revealed: marking the error's location versus also giving the right form. Both helped about equally, which suggests that locating an error can carry much of the value.
- Feedback was spread across many sessions rather than given once, and the authors credit the steady error reduction to this repetition.
- The study isolates one narrow error class (manner and movement prepositions) instead of measuring accuracy in general, which makes the effect easy to see.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (learn): Score each self-induced repair rule on a later, untouched batch as well as immediately, and keep only rules whose benefit persists.
- **I2** (learn): Run a no-change baseline next to every training or repair step as a negative control, so apparent gains can be credited to the intervention itself.
- **I3** (learn): Test an LLM teacher tier that only flags the suspicious token or arc against one that supplies the full fix, and check whether the cheaper signal is enough.
- **I4** (learn): Apply correction signals iteratively over several rounds of silver data instead of in a single pass, and track error rates per round.
- **I5** (tree): Build focused evaluation slices for preposition-headed relations so parser changes affecting them are not hidden in the overall LAS.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

Also on the byline: [University of Mazandaran](https://ror.org/05fp9g671) · [Ilam University](https://ror.org/01r277z15).

📚 Shelves (6): [🖥️ Computer Science](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/) · 16,667 works · [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 16,039 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 15,891 works · [🗄️ Information Systems](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/information-systems/) · 1,437 works · [💭 Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/) · 1,552 works · [💭 Developmental and Educational Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/developmental-and-educational-psychology/) · 499 works

🧭 Topics (2): [English](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/english/) · 2,263 works · [🖍️ Grammatical error correction & learner language](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/grammatical-error-correction/) · 156 works

## Cite

Cite as: Danial Babajani Azizi, Nourollah Gharanjik, Mr. and Mahmood Dehqan, Dr. 2022. The Effects of Mobile-mediated Explicit and Implicit Feedback onThe Effects of Mobile-mediated Explicit and Implicit Feedback on EFL Learners’ Use of English Prepositions EFL Learners’ Use of English Prepositions. Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition 8.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@inproceedings{azizi2022effects,
  title = {{The Effects of Mobile-mediated Explicit and Implicit Feedback onThe Effects of Mobile-mediated Explicit and Implicit Feedback on EFL Learners’ Use of English Prepositions EFL Learners’ Use of English Prepositions}},
  author = {Danial Babajani Azizi, Nourollah Gharanjik, Mr. and Mahmood Dehqan, Dr.},
  booktitle = {Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition 8},
  year = {2022},
  doi = {10.31261/tapsla.11943},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.31261/tapsla.11943}
}
```

- [← previous The effect of teaching Arabic grammar according to functional education in the achievement of female students fourth grade literary](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/anon-2022-effect-teaching-arabic-grammar-according/)
- [next → The Maaloula Aramaic Speech Corpus (MASC): From Printed Material to a Lemmatized and Time-Aligned Corpus](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/eid-2022-maaloula-aramaic-speech-corpus-masc/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2022](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2022/page/9/)

## References

74 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Al Ajmi, A. A. S. (2015). The effect of written corrective feedback on Omani students’ accuracy in the use of English prepositions. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.1p.61 [↗](https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.1p.61)
2. Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(00)00027-8)
3. Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods (5th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Berg%2C+B%2E+L%2E+%282004%29%2E+Qualitative+research+methods+%285th+ed%2E%29%2E+Pearson+Education%2C+Inc%2E)
4. Berthold, M. (2011). Reliability of Quick Placement Tests: How much faith can we place on quick paper or internet-based placement tests. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 674–698. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Berthold%2C+M%2E+%282011%29%2E+Reliability+of+Quick+Placement+Tests%3A+How+much+faith+can+we+place+on+quick+paper+or+internet%2Dbased+placement+tests%2E+Australian+Journal+of+Teacher+Education%2C+35%286%29%2C+674%E2%80%93698%2E)
5. Beşkardeşler, S., & Kocaman, O. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback types on the prepositions of place and time in EFL context. Journal of Multidisciplinary studies in Education, 3(1), 1–13. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Be%C5%9Fkarde%C5%9Fler%2C+S%2E%2C+%26+Kocaman%2C+O%2E+%282019%29%2E+The+effects+of+written+corrective+feedback+types+on+the+prepositions+of+place+and+time+in+EFL+context%2E+Journal+of+Multidisciplinary+studies+in+Education%2C+3%281%29%2C+)
6. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw..2007.11.004 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw..2007.11.004)
7. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. [↗](https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400)
8. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924 Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009a). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924)
9. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009b). The value of focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63, 204–211. http://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn043 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn043)
10. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016)
11. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters. [↗](https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056)
12. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001)
13. Braine, G. (2001). A study of English as a foreign language (EFL) writers on a local-area network (LAN) and in traditional classes. Computers and Composition, 18(3), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/s8755-4615(01)00056-1 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s8755-4615(01)00056-1)
14. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. Longman. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brown%2C+H%2E+D%2E+%282007%29%2E+Principles+of+language+learning+and+teaching%2E+Longman%2E)
15. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(03)00038-9 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(03)00038-9)
16. Corlet, D., Sharples, D., Bull, S., & Chan, T. (2005). Evaluation of a mobile learning organiser for university students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00124.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00124.x)
17. Ellis, R. (1991). Grammaticality judgments and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 161–186. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ellis%2C+R%2E+%281991%29%2E+Grammaticality+judgments+and+second+language+acquisition%2E+Studies+in+Second+Language+Acquisition%2C+13%2C+161%E2%80%93186%2E)
18. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023 Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023)
19. H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001)
20. Farrokhi, F., & Sattarpour, S. (2012). The effects of written corrective feedback on improvement of grammatical accuracy of high-proficient L2 learners. World Journal of Education, 2. https:/doi.org/10.5430/wje.v2n2p49 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v2n2p49)
21. Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 31–104). Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ferris%2C+D%2E+%282006%29%2E+Does+error+feedback+help+student+writers%3F+New+evidence+on+the+short%2Dand+long%2Dterm+effects+of+written+error+correction%2E+In+K%2E+Hyland+%26+F%2E+Hyland+%28Eds%2E%29%2C+Feedback+in+second+language+w)
22. Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263109990490)
23. Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80110-6)
24. Frear, D. (2012). The effect of written corrective feedback and revision on intermediate Chinese learners’ acquisition of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Frear%2C+D%2E+%282012%29%2E+The+effect+of+written+corrective+feedback+and+revision+on+intermediate+Chinese+learners%E2%80%99+acquisition+of+English+%28Unpublished+doctoral+dissertation%29%2E+University+of+Auckland%2C+Auckland%2C)
25. Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006 Gass. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006)
26. S. M., & Lewis, K. (2007). Perceptions of interactional feedback: Differences between heritage language learners and non-heritage language learners. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 79–99). Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=S%2E+M%2E%2C+%26+Lewis%2C+K%2E+%282007%29%2E+Perceptions+of+interactional+feedback%3A+Differences+between+heritage+language+learners+and+non%2Dheritage+language+learners%2E+In+A%2E+Mackey+%28Ed%2E%29%2C+Conversational+interaction+in+s)
27. Garcıa Laborda, J., Magal Royo, T., Litzler, M. F., & Gimenez Lopez, J. L. (2014). Mobile phones for Spain’s university entrance examination language test. Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 17–30. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Garc%C4%B1a+Laborda%2C+J%2E%2C+Magal+Royo%2C+T%2E%2C+Litzler%2C+M%2E+F%2E%2C+%26+Gimenez+Lopez%2C+J%2E+L%2E+%282014%29%2E+Mobile+phones+for+Spain%E2%80%99s+university+entrance+examination+language+test%2E+Educational+Technology+%26+Society%2C+17%282%29%2C+17%E2%80%93)
28. Ghorbani, N., & Ebadi, S. (2020). Exploring learners’ grammatical development in mobile assisted language learning, Cogent Education, 7(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/233118 6X.2019.1704599 Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–572. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588240 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/233118)
29. Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children’s academic achievement pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00298.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00298.x)
30. Hsu, L. (2013). English as a foreign language learners’ perception of mobile assisted language learning: A cross-national study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.649485 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.649485)
31. Hsu, L. (2016). Examining EFL teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and the adoption of mobile-assisted language learning: A partial least square approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1287–1297. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1278024 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1278024)
32. Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form of –te i (ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning, 54, 311–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00257.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00257.x)
33. Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects of L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263103000019 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263103000019)
34. Jusa, G., & Kuang, C. H. (2016). The effect of direct corrective feedback on the correct usage of the preposition of time. Journal of Advanced Research in Social and Behavioural Sciences, 3(1), 109–122. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jusa%2C+G%2E%2C+%26+Kuang%2C+C%2E+H%2E+%282016%29%2E+The+effect+of+direct+corrective+feedback+on+the+correct+usage+of+the+preposition+of+time%2E+Journal+of+Advanced+Research+in+Social+and+Behavioural+Sciences%2C+3%281%29%2C+109%E2%80%9312)
35. Karim, K., & Endely, M. J. (2019). Should feedback be direct or indirect? Comparing the effectiveness of different types of WCF on L1 Arabic writers’ use of English prepositions. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 13, 68–84. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Karim%2C+K%2E%2C+%26+Endely%2C+M%2E+J%2E+%282019%29%2E+Should+feedback+be+direct+or+indirect%3F+Comparing+the+effectiveness+of+different+types+of+WCF+on+L1+Arabic+writers%E2%80%99+use+of+English+prepositions%2E+Language+Teaching+Res)
36. Keshavarz, M. H. (2015). Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and interlanguage. Rahnama. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Keshavarz%2C+M%2E+H%2E+%282015%29%2E+Contrastive+analysis%2C+error+analysis%2C+and+interlanguage%2E+Rahnama%2E)
37. Ko, M. H. (2019). Students’ reactions to using smartphones and social media for vocabulary feedback. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(8), 920–944. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09588221.2018.1541360 Kohnke, L. (2020). Exploring learner perception, experience and motivation of using a mobile app in L2 vocabulary acquisition. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2020010102 [↗](https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2020010102)
38. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x)
39. Lindbom-Ylanne, S., & Pihlajamaki, H. (2003). Can a collaborative network environment enhance essay writing process? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 17–30. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lindbom%2DYlanne%2C+S%2E%2C+%26+Pihlajamaki%2C+H%2E+%282003%29%2E+Can+a+collaborative+network+environment+enhance+essay+writing+process%3F+British+Journal+of+Educational+Technology%2C+34%2C+17%E2%80%9330%2E)
40. Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and L2 development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Leeman%2C+J%2E+%282003%29%2E+Recasts+and+L2+development%3A+Beyond+negative+evidence%2E+Studies+in+Second+Language+Acquisition%2C+25%2C+37%E2%80%9363%2E)
41. Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA and Teaching, 15, 65–79. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Liu%2C+Y%2E+%282008%29%2E+The+effects+of+error+feedback+in+second+language+writing%2E+Arizona+Working+Papers+in+SLA+and+Teaching%2C+15%2C+65%E2%80%9379%2E)
42. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x)
43. Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54(1), 153–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00251.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00251.x)
44. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444812000365 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444812000365)
45. Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407–452). Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Mackey%2C+A%2E%2C+%26+Goo%2C+J%2E+%282007%29%2E+Interaction+research+in+SLA%3A+A+meta%2Danalysis+and+research+synthesis%2E+In+A%2E+Mackey+%28Ed%2E%29%2C+Conversational+interaction+in+second+language+acquisition+%28pp%2E+407%E2%80%93452%29%2E+Oxford+U)
46. McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00393.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00393.x)
47. McQuiggan, S., Kosturko, L., Sabourin, J., & McQuiggan, J. (2015). Mobile learning: A handbook for developers, educators, and learners. John Wiley Sons, Inc. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=McQuiggan%2C+S%2E%2C+Kosturko%2C+L%2E%2C+Sabourin%2C+J%2E%2C+%26+McQuiggan%2C+J%2E+%282015%29%2E+Mobile+learning%3A+A+handbook+for+developers%2C+educators%2C+and+learners%2E+John+Wiley+Sons%2C+Inc%2E)
48. Miller, P. C. (2003). The effectiveness of corrective feedback: A meta-analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Miller%2C+P%2E+C%2E+%282003%29%2E+The+effectiveness+of+corrective+feedback%3A+A+meta%2Danalysis+%28Unpublished+doctoral+dissertation%29%2E+Purdue+University%2C+West+Lafayette%2C+USA%2E)
49. Motallebzadeh, K., & Nematizadeh, S. (2011). Does gender play a role in the assessment of oral proficiency?. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n4p165 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n4p165)
50. Nassaji. (2018). Errors versus mistakes. In H. Nassaji (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, Grammar Teaching Volume. Wiley-Blackwell. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0059)
51. Nassaji. (2018). Errors versus mistakes. In H. Nassaji (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, Grammar Teaching Volume. Wiley-Blackwell. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0059)
52. Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135)
53. Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional dimension in instructed second language learning. Bloomsbury. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Nassaji%2C+H%2E+%282015%29%2E+The+interactional+dimension+in+instructed+second+language+learning%2E+Bloomsbury%2E)
54. Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x)
55. O’Bannon, B. W., & Thomas, K. (2014). Teacher perceptions of using mobile phones in the classroom: Age matters!. Computers & Computers Education, 74, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compedu.2014.01.006 Qian, K., Owen, N., & Bax, S. (2018). Researching mobile-assisted Chinese-character learning strategies among adult distance learners. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(1), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2018.1418633 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j)
56. Rassaei, E. (2019). Computer-mediated text-based and audio-based corrective feedback, perceptual style and L2 development. System, 82, 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.03.004 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.03.004)
57. Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schmidt%2C+R%2E+W%2E+%282001%29%2E+Attention%2E+In+P%2E+Robinson+%28Ed%2E%29%2C+Cognition+and+second+language+instruction+%28pp%2E+3%E2%80%9332%29%2E+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
58. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sheen%2C+Y%2E+%282007%29%2E+The+effects+of+corrective+feedback%2C+language+aptitude%2C+and+learner+attitudes+on+the+acquisition+of+English+articles%2E+In+A%2E+Mackey+%28Ed%2E%29%2C+Conversational+interaction+in+second+language)
59. Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00480.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00480.x)
60. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795)
61. Stefanou, C., & Revesz, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learners differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12212 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12212)
62. Stockwell, G. (2013). Technology and motivation in English language teaching and learning. In E. Ushioda (Ed.), International perspectives on motivation (pp. 156–175). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137000873 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137000873)
63. Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181 [↗](https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181)
64. Swain, M., & Suzuki, W. (2008). Interaction, output, and communicative language learning. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 557–568). Blackwell. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470694138.ch39)
65. Tarighat, S., & Khodabakhsh, S. (2016). Mobile-assisted language assessment: Assessing speaking. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 409–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.014 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.014)
66. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x)
67. Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. P (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003)
68. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x)
69. Vigil, N., & Oller, J. (1976). Rule fossilization: A tentative model. Language Learning, 26, 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1976.tb00278.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1976.tb00278.x)
70. Wistner, B., Sakai, H., & Abe, M. (2009). An analysis of the Oxford Placement Test and the Michigan English Placement Test as L2 proficiency tests. Bulletin of the Faculty of Letters,58(2), 33–44. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wistner%2C+B%2E%2C+Sakai%2C+H%2E%2C+%26+Abe%2C+M%2E+%282009%29%2E+An+analysis+of+the+Oxford+Placement+Test+and+the+Michigan+English+Placement+Test+as+L2+proficiency+tests%2E+Bulletin+of+the+Faculty+of+Letters%2C58%282%29%2C+33%E2%80%9344%2E)
71. Xodabande, I. (2017). The effectiveness of social media network telegram in teaching English language pronunciation to Iranian EFL learners. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2017.1347081 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2017.1347081)
72. Xu, Q., & Peng, H. (2017). Investigating mobile-assisted oral feedback in teaching Chinese as a second language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(3–4), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1297836 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1297836)
73. Yousefi, M. & Nassaji, H. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pragmatics and the role of moderator variables. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 278–309. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.19012.you [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.19012.you)
74. Zhao, Y., & Ellis, R. (2020). The relative effects of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on the acquisition of 3rd person -s by Chinese university students: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820903343 Danial Babajani Azizi, Nourollah Gharanjik, Mahmood Dehqan Zum Einfluss des mobil vermittelten, expliziten und impliziten Feedbacks auf die Verwendung englischer Präpositionen durch EFL-Lernende Zusammenfassung Fehler zu machen ist ein natürlicher Bestandteil des Lernprozesses. Dementsprechend ist es erforderlich, ein korrigierendes Feedback zu geben. In diesem Zusammenhang wurde in der vorliegenden Studie der Einfluss des mobil vermittelten, expliziten und impliziten korrigierenden Feedbacks auf die Verwendung englischer modaler und lokaler Präpositionen durch iranische EFL-Lernende analysiert. Zu diesem Zweck wurden insgesamt 60 Probanden nach dem Zufallsprinzip in drei WhatsApp-Gruppen zu je 20 Personen eingeteilt – zwei Versuchs- und eine Kontrollgruppe. Die Probandengruppen nahmen an einem Prätest teil, erhielten Anweisungen zu den untersuchten Fehlern und korrigierten sie in Anlehnung an korrigierendes Feedback. Anschließend wurde ein Post- und ein Follow-up-Test durchgeführt. Die statistische Analyse ergab, dass obwohl die Probanden in der Kontrollgruppe im Prätest besser als die in den Versuchsgruppen abgeschnitten hatten, konnten sie ihre Leistungen im Post- und im Follow-up-Test nicht verbessern. Die Teilnehmer der beiden Versuchsgruppen verbesserten hingegen ihre Ergebnisse im Posttest und konnten die erzielten Fortschritte im Follow-up-Test beibehalten. Abschließend wurden die pädagogischen Implikationen sowohl für Lehrkräfte als auch für Lernende abgeleitet. Schlüsselwörter: mobil vermitteltes korrigierendes Feedback, explizites korrigierendes Feedback, implizites korrigierendes Feedback, Präpositionen [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820903343)

*Updated 1 November 2026*