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


Making mistakes is a natural part of learning process requiring correction; accordingly, corrective feedback is indispensable. On this ground, the present study compared the effects of mobile-mediated explicit and implicit corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ use of English prepositions of manner and movement. To this end, the participants including 60 learners were randomly assigned to three groups of 20 individuals on WhatsApp application. These three groups included two experimental and one control groups. The treatment groups
sat for a pre-test, received instruction on the errors under study, and practiced correcting them in response to the corrective feedback condition. Next, participants took immediate post-test and delayed post-test. The statistical analysis revealed that although the control group was more proficient than its experimental counterparts on the pre-test, their performance did not improve on immediate and delayed post-tests. However, both of the experimental groups significantly improved on immediate post-test and retained their gains on the delayed post-test. The pedagogical implication is provided for both teachers and learners.


mobile-mediated corrective feedback; explicit corrective feedback; implicit corrective feedback; prepositions

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.

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.

Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods (5th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.

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.

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.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009a). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009b). The value of focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63, 204–211.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.

Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.

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.

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.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. Longman.

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.

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.

Ellis, R. (1991). Grammaticality judgments and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 161–186.

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima. H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.

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:/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gass. 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.

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.

Ghorbani, N., & Ebadi, S. (2020). Exploring learners’ grammatical development in mobile assisted language learning, Cogent Education, 7(1), 1–14.

Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–572.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Keshavarz, M. H. (2015). Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and interlanguage. Rahnama.

Ko, M. H. (2019). Students’ reactions to using smartphones and social media for vocabulary feedback. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(8), 920–944.

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.

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.

Lindbom-Ylanne, S., & Pihlajamaki, H. (2003). Can a collaborative network environment enhance essay writing process? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 17–30.

Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and L2 development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.

Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA and Teaching, 15, 65–79.

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.

Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54(1), 153–188.

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.

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.

McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.

McQuiggan, S., Kosturko, L., Sabourin, J., & McQuiggan, J. (2015). Mobile learning: A handbook for developers, educators, and learners. John Wiley Sons, Inc.

Miller, P. C. (2003). The effectiveness of corrective feedback: A meta-analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.

Motallebzadeh, K., & Nematizadeh, S. (2011). Does gender play a role in the assessment of oral proficiency?. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 165–172.

Nassaji. (2018). Errors versus mistakes. In H. Nassaji (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, Grammar Teaching Volume. Wiley-Blackwell.

Nassaji. (2018). Errors versus mistakes. In H. Nassaji (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, Grammar Teaching Volume. Wiley-Blackwell.

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.

Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional dimension in instructed second language learning. Bloomsbury.

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.

O’Bannon, B. W., & Thomas, K. (2014). Teacher perceptions of using mobile phones in the classroom: Age matters!. Computers & Computers Education, 74, 15–25.

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.

Rassaei, E. (2019). Computer-mediated text-based and audio-based corrective feedback, perceptual style and L2 development. System, 82, 97–110.

Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.

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.

Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835–874.

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.

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.

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.

Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46.

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.

Tarighat, S., & Khodabakhsh, S. (2016). Mobile-assisted language assessment: Assessing speaking. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 409–413.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.

Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. P (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305.

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.

Vigil, N., & Oller, J. (1976). Rule fossilization: A tentative model. Language Learning, 26, 281–295.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


Published : 2022-07-29

Babajani AziziD., GharanjikN., & DehqanM. (2022). The Effects of Mobile-mediated Explicit and Implicit Feedback on EFL Learners’ Use of English Prepositions. Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition, 8(2), 1-19.

Danial Babajani Azizi
Khazar Institute of Higher Education Mahmoudabad  Iran, Islamic Republic of
Nourollah Gharanjik, Mr. 
Ilam University  Iran, Islamic Republic of
Mahmood Dehqan, Dr. 
University of Mazandaran  Iran, Islamic Republic of

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The Copyright Holders of the submitted texts are the Authors. The Reader is granted the rights to use the material available in the TAPSLA websites and pdf documents under the provisions of the Creative Commons 4.0 International License: Attribution - Share Alike  (CC BY-SA 4.0). The user is free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

1. License

The University of Silesia Press provides immediate open access to journal’s content under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license ( Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

2. Author’s Warranties

The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author/s, has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author/s.

If the article contains illustrative material (drawings, photos, graphs, maps), the author declares that the said works are of his authorship, they do not infringe the rights of the third party (including personal rights, i.a. the authorization to reproduce physical likeness) and the author holds exclusive proprietary copyrights. The author publishes the above works as part of the article under the licence "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International".

ATTENTION! When the legal situation of the illustrative material has not been determined and the necessary consent has not been granted by the proprietary copyrights holders, the submitted material will not be accepted for editorial process. At the same time the author takes full responsibility for providing false data (this also regards covering the costs incurred by the University of Silesia Press and financial claims of the third party).

3. User Rights

Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, the users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit the contribution) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the article for any purpose, provided they attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.

4. Co-Authorship

If the article was prepared jointly with other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.

I hereby declare that in the event of withdrawal of the text from the publishing process or submitting it to another publisher without agreement from the editorial office, I agree to cover all costs incurred by the University of Silesia in connection with my application.