Reyhane Farmani, Omid Akbari, Afsaneh Ghanizadeh


Purpose: This research investigated the effect of immediate and delayed error correction on motivation of EFL learners to approve or disapprove the research hypothesis that, there is not any significant difference between three group of immediate correction, delayed Correction and control group.

Methodology: This article was conducted by three groups of 30 subjects and in total, population of 90 learners. The errors committed by three groups of immediate correction, delayed Correction and control group were corrected in three different ways: immediately and with delay and with no special method, respectively. A motivation questionnaire and a language test were given to three groups in the first session of the term and the last session of the term to see the effect of different kind of error correction. The data of pre-test and post-test were analyzed by SPSS and one way ANOVA was used.

Findings: The result provided evidence for reject of the hypothesis and immediate group performed better than delayed group and control group.

Significance: This study is the first research investigating the effect of error correction time on motivation.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



error correction, motivation, immediate error correction, delayed error correction


Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers: Cambridge University Press.

Brosvic, G. M., Epstein, M. L., Dihoff, R. E., & Cook, M. J. (2006). Acquisition and retention of Esperanto: The case for error correction and immediate feedback. The Psychological Record, 56(2), 205.

Cohen, A. D. (1975). Error correction and the training of language teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 59(8), 414-422.

Dornyeï, Z. (2001). Teaching and Researching Motivation, England: Pearson Education Limited. P111-25.

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1).

Gómez Martínez, S. (2006). Should we correct our student’s errors in l2 learning?

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of educational research, 58(1), 79-97.

Long, M. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping cognitions. on TESOL, 77, 278-294.

Lukmani, Y. M. (1972). Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language learning, 22(2), 261-273.

Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English.

Rahimi, A., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2012). Impact of immediate and delayed error correction on EFL learners’ oral production: CAF. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 45-54.

Sanders, M. (2005). The Effect Of Immediate Feedback And After Action Reviews (AARS) On Learning, Retention And Transfer.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. Input in second language acquisition, 15, 165-179.

Varnosfadrani, A. D. (2006). A comparison of the effect of implicit/explicit and immediate/delayed corrective feedback on learners' performance in tailor-made test. ResearchSpace@ Auckland.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright © 2015 - 2023. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching (ISSN 2537-1754) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing GroupAll rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).