nach oben

Education and Information Technologies

Erschienen in:

25.04.2020

Exploring the effect of computer-mediated teacher feedback on the writing achievement of Iranian EFL learners: Does motivation count?

verfasst von: Narjis Sherafati, Farzad Mahmoudi Largani, Shahrzad Amini

Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies | Ausgabe 5/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The use of a computer as a means and/or a source of feedback provision has facilitated the process of teaching and learning writing. The integration of computers into writing classes enabled teachers to provide timely and reliable feedback. Taking into account these opportunities that computers bring to the classroom, the present study attempted to investigate the efficacy of using computer-mediated teacher feedback and computer-generated feedback on learners’ writing skill. In addition, learners’ motivational level was explored. To do so, 60 intermediate EFL learners were selected from two intact classes and were randomly assigned to treatment groups. The results of paired samples t-test and independent samples t-test revealed a significant improvement in writing ability of the two groups from pretest to posttest. Only computer-mediated feedback significantly improved learners’ writing ability from posttest to delayed posttest. In addition, no significant difference was observed between the posttest scores of the two groups, while there was a significant difference between the delayed posttest score of the two groups. The result of interview indicated learners’ motivation in using computer-mediated feedback while there was disagreement in the other group concerning the motivation to use this approach. The study concluded that computers are a good medium for feedback provision. Furthermore, learners do not appreciate the role of computers as the source; rather, they accept it as a supplement to teacher feedback.

Vorheriger Artikel ICT resources for research: an ANOVA analysis on the digital research skills of higher education teachers comparing the areas of knowledge within each gender

Nächster Artikel Exploring factors affecting academics’ adoption of emerging mobile technologies-an extended UTAUT perspective

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

AbuSeileek, A. F. (2013). Using track changes and word processor to provide corrective feedback to learners in writing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(4), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12004.CrossRef

Al Khateeb, A. (2013). Wikis in EFL writing classes in Saudi Arabia: Identifying instructors’ reflections on merits, demerits, and implementation. Teaching English with Technology, 13(4), 3–22.

Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (1991). Computer-based instruction: Methods and development (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Amiri, E. (2012). A study of the application of digital technologies in teaching and learning English language and literature. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 1(5), 103–107.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Walker, D. A. (2013). Introduction to research in education (9th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.

Ayres, R. (2002). Learner attitudes towards the use of CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(3), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1076/call.15.3.241.8189.

Babaee, M. (2012). E-portfolio and social media for facilitating language learning. Journal of Language, Culture and Society, 16(36), 29–35.

Baytak, A., Tarman, B., & Ayas, C. (2017). Experiencing technology integration in education: children’s perceptions. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2, 139–151 Retrieved November 23, 2019 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1052441.

Beatty, K. (2003). Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004.CrossRef

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. (2009). 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.CrossRef

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Carvalho, C., Santos, J., Conboy, J., & Martins, D. (2014). Teachers’ feedback: Exploring differences in students’ perceptions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 159, 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.351.CrossRef

ChanLin, L. J. (2009). Applying motivational analysis in a web-based course. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290802646123.CrossRef

Chen, X. H. (1997). Novel synchronous CDMA multiuser detection scheme: orthogonal decision-feedback detection and its performance study. IEE Proceedings-Communications, 144(4), 275–280.

Chen, Y. H. (2005). Computer mediated communication: The use of CMC to develop EFL learners’ communicative competence. Asian EFL Journal, 7(1), 167–182.

Chen, C. F. E., & Cheng, W. Y. E. (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 94–112 Retrieved November 19, 2019 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num2/chencheng.pdf.

Cheng, G. (2017). The impact of online automated feedback on students' reflective journal writing in an EFL course. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.04.002.CrossRef

Cunningham, K. J. (2019). Student perceptions and use of technology-mediated text and screencast feedback in ESL writing. Computers and Composition, 52, 222–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2019.02.003.CrossRef

Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9(3), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.9.3.256.CrossRef

Dinnen, J. L., & Collopy, R. M. (2009). An analysis of feedback given to strong and weak student writers. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 49(3). Retrieved November 6, 2019 from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol49/iss3/5

Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Ducate, L., & Arnold, D. (2012). Computer-mediated feedback: Effectiveness and students’ perceptions of screen-casting software vs. the comment function. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across writing contexts and tasks (pp. 31–56). San Marcos: CALICO.

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054.

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12183.CrossRef

El-Seoud, M. S. A., Ghenghesh, P., Seddiek, N., Nosseir, A., Taj-Eddin, I. A. T. F., & El-Khouly, M. M. (2013). E-learning and motivation effects on Egyptian higher education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9(4), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v9i4.3465.CrossRef

Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. System, 46, 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.011.CrossRef

Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.005.CrossRef

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6.CrossRef

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Ghazi, S., & Zamanian, M. (2016). The effect of asynchronous versus computer-mediated corrective feedback on the correct use of English articles in an EFL context. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 5(2), 169–181.

Gordon, W. (2013, July 12). Urban planet mobile to release its ground-breaking web-based English writing assessment tool for English as second language students. Retrieved from https://assessment-tool-for-english-as-second-language-students-162203395.html

Han, S., & Shin, J. A. (2017). Teaching Google search techniques in an L2 academic writing context. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 172–194.

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Henderson, M., & Philips, M. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment: Scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1878.

Hsieh, Y. C. (2017). A case study of the dynamics of scaffolding among ESL learners and online resources in collaborative learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1–2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1273245.CrossRef

Hsu, L. (2017). EFL learners’ acceptance of technology in a computer-assisted language learning (CALL) context: The role of intrinsic-extrinsic motivation in English learning. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(9), 679–685. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.9.953.CrossRef

Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and students' sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3–25.

Jacobs, H. L., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hugheym, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition. Rowley: Newbury House.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224.CrossRef

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.CrossRef

Kissau, S. (2006). Gender differences in second language motivation: An investigation of micro- and macro-level influences. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 73–96.

Kluger, A. N., & Adler, S. (1993). Person-versus computer-mediated feedback. Computers in Human Behavior, 9(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(93)90017-M.CrossRef

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: OUP.

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2002). University students' perceptions of native and non-native speaker teachers of English. Language Awareness, 11(2), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410208667051.CrossRef

Lavolette, E., Polio, C., & Kahng, J. (2015). The accuracy of computer-assisted feedback and students' responses to it. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 50–68 10125/44417.

Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004.CrossRef

Lim, F. V., & Phua, J. (2019). Teaching writing with language feedback technology. Computers and Composition, 54, 102518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2019.102518.CrossRef

Liou, H. C., & Lee, S. L. (2011). How wiki-based writing influences college students’ collaborative and individual composing products, processes, and learners’ perceptions. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 45–61.CrossRef

Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01213.x.CrossRef

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060128.CrossRef

Nagata, N. (1996). Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition. CALICO Journal, 14(1), 53–75.

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Arnold.

Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2014). Promoting FL collaborative writing through the use of Web2.0 tools. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publications.

Page, E. (2003). Project Essay Grade: PEG. In M. D. Shermis & J. C. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 43–54). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2005). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: A case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500099219.CrossRef

Ranalli, J. (2018). Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 653–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994.CrossRef

Richards J. (2008). Teaching listening and speaking: From theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Rodgers, D. L., & Withrow-Thorton, B. J. (2005). The effect of instructional media on learner motivation. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(4), 333.

Rosen, Y., & Foltz, P. (2014). Assessing collaborative problem solving through automated technologies. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 9, 389–410.

Rostami, A., & Hoveidi, A. (2014). Improving descriptive writing skills using blog-based peer feedback. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(2). 227–234.

Rouhi, A., & Vafadar, H. (2014). Web-based and collaborative corrective feedback: Exploring options for reducing the dependence on the teacher in l2 writing. Teaching English Language, 8(2), 59–90 Retrieved December 11, 2019 from http://www.teljournal.org/article_53818_72e37b775970f46910d1ced351f3f7dc.pdf.

Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Samar, R. G., Nemati, M., & Amini, S. (2016). Which type of feedback is more conductive to better writing achievement? Computer-assisted, peer or teacher feedback? Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 6(8), 78–93.

Saricaoglu, A. (2018). The impact of automated feedback on L2 learners’ written causal explanations. ReCALL, 31(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401800006X.CrossRef

Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 1(13), 96–120 http://dx.doi.org/10125/44170.

Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRef

Shirani Bidabadi, F. (2013). Motivational English language learning strategies through computers among EFL learners. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1(2), 103–112 Retrieved December 19, 2019 from http://jfl.iaun.ac.ir/article_550481_1eccf94ce981d375aeedcccc5b2a1460.pdf.

Soltanpour, F., & Valizadeh, M. (2018). The effect of individualized technology-mediated feedback on EFL learners’ argumentative essays. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(3), 12. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.3p.125.CrossRef

Sotillo, S. (2010). Quality and type of corrective feedback, noticing, and learner uptake in synchronous computer-mediated text-based and voice chats. In M. Putz and L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing and second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 351–370). Amsterdam, NLD: John Benjamins Publishing.

Srichanyachon, N. (2012). Teacher written feedback for L2 learners’ writing development. Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Studies, 12(1), 7–17.

Stepp-Greany, J. (2002). Student perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 165–180 10125/25148.

Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007.CrossRef

Suzuki, M. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in adult ESL classrooms. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1–21 https://doi.org/10.7916/D8TT4QG7.

Taras, M. (2003). To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 549–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930301678.CrossRef

Tiene, D., & Luft, P. (2001). Teaching in a technology-rich classroom. Educational Technology, 41(4), 23–31 Retrieved December 19, 2019 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428678.

Tomlinson, B. (2009). Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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.CrossRef

Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003.CrossRef

Ware, P. D. (2003). From involvement to engagement in online communication: Promoting intercultural competence in foreign language education. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.

Ware, P. D. (2004). Confidence and competition online: ESL student perspectives on web-based discussions in the classroom. Computers and Composition, 21(4), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.08.004.CrossRef

Ware, P. (2011). Computer-generated feedback on student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 45(4), 769–774. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.272525.CrossRef

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CAUCO Journal, 13(2), 7–26.

Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 1–24.CrossRef

Titel: Exploring the effect of computer-mediated teacher feedback on the writing achievement of Iranian EFL learners: Does motivation count?
verfasst von: Narjis Sherafati
Farzad Mahmoudi Largani
Shahrzad Amini
Publikationsdatum: 25.04.2020
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies / Ausgabe 5/2020
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10177-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2020

Longitudinal study of Kyrgyz students’ general physics course performance in paper-based versus online–based tests

Effectiveness of the use of the E-Gamification strategy to develop the educational achievement of the preparatory students in Dammam City and their attitudes towards it

The impact of preservice teachers’ cognitive and technological perceptions on their continuous intention to use flipped classroom

Developing intercultural communicative competence by the means of telecollaboration

Virtual learning communities (VLCs) rethinking: Collaboration between learning communities

The impact of an adaptive e-course on students’ achievements based on the students’ prior knowledge