nach oben

Journal of Computers in Education

Erschienen in:

08.02.2022

The potentiality of computer-based feedback in fostering EFL learners’ writing performance, self-regulation ability, and self-efficacy beliefs

verfasst von: Narjis Sherafati, Farzad Mahmoudi Largani

Erschienen in: Journal of Computers in Education | Ausgabe 1/2023

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to explore how learners’ writing performance, self-regulation, and self-efficacy were affected by implementing computer-based feedback in writing classes. To do so, a convenience sample of 42 Iranian male upper-intermediate EFL learners were selected from two writing classes in a branch of Islamic Azad University. After measuring the proficiency level of the participant using the Oxford quick placement test, the two classes were randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. As a pretest and posttest, both groups took the writing test, the writing self-regulation scale, and the second language writing self-efficacy scale. In addition, they took part in 12 sessions where the experimental group received computer-based feedback through the application of Writing Planet, and the control group practiced the traditional approach. The results of MANOVA and paired-samples t-tests indicated that the experimental group’s performances on the writing test, the self-regulation and the self-efficacy scales improved significantly. The findings of the study highlighted the point that computer-based feedback is an appropriate alternative for traditional teacher-centered classrooms.

Vorheriger Artikel Mediated transfer: impact on programming misconceptions

Nächster Artikel Instructional techniques and tools reported as being used by teachers within empirical research focusing on in-class digital ability development: a literature review

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 "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

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

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Abtahi, M., Abadikhah, S., & Dehqan, M. (2020). The influence of computer-based and collaborative handwritten peer feedback on the writing performance of EFL learners. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 7(3), 92–113.

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.12004CrossRef

Alberth, A. (2019). Use of Facebook, students’ intrinsic motivation to study writing, writing self-efficacy and writing performance. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2018.1552892CrossRef

Appleby, J., Samuels, P., & Treasure-Jones, T. (1997). Diagnosys- a knowledge-based diagnostic test of basic mathematical skills. Computers and Education, 28(2), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(97)00001-8CrossRef

Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater® V. 2. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 4(3), 1–30.

Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition—Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1272-9CrossRef

Bailey, E. P., & Powell, P. A. (2009). The practical writer with readings. Ohio: Wadsworth.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3CrossRef

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). Academic Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. Henry Holt and Co.

Beishuizen, J. (2011). A conceptual framework for research on self-regulated learning. In L. P. Carneiro, K. Steffens, & J. Underwood (Eds.), Self-regulated learning in technology enhanced learning environments. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRef

Bernacki, M. L., Aguilar, A., & Byrnes, J. (2011). Self-regulated learning and technologyenhanced learning environments: An opportunity propensity analysis. In G. Dettori & D. Persico (Eds.), Fostering self-regulated learning through ICT (pp. 1–26). IGI Global Publishers.

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

Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00014-2CrossRef

Bridge, P., & Appleyard, R. (2008). A comparison of electronic and paper-based assignment submission and feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 644–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00753.xCrossRef

Brunfaut, T., Harding, L., & Batty, A. O. (2018). Going online: The effect of mode of delivery on performances and perceptions on an English L2 writing test suite. Assessing Writing, 36, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.003CrossRef

Caraway, K., Tucker, C. M., Reinke, W. M., & Hall, C. (2003). Self-efficacy, goal orientation, and fear of failure as predictors of school engagement in high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 40(4), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10092CrossRef

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.

Chen, J., White, S., McCloskey, M., Soroui, J., & Chun, Y. (2011). Effects of computer versus paper administration of an adult functional writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 16(1), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.11.001CrossRef

Chodorow, M., Gamon, M., & Tetreault, J. (2010). The utility of article and preposition error correction systems for English language learners: Feedback and assessment. Language Testing, 27(3), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210364391CrossRef

Choi, I. C., Kim, K. S., & Boo, J. (2003). Comparability of a paper-based language test and a computer-based language test. Language Testing, 20(3), 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532203lt258oaCrossRef

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

Coniam, D. (2009). Experimenting with a computer essay-scoring program based on ESL student writing scripts. ReCALL, 21(2), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344009000147CrossRef

Dizon, G. (2016). A comparative study of facebook vs. paper-and-pencil writing to improve L2 writing skills. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1249–1258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1266369

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.

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

Elliot, S. M. (2001). IntelliMetric: From here to validity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Ellis, C., & Folley, S. (2011). Using student assessment choice and eAssessment to achieve self-regulated learning. In G. Dettori & D. Persico (Eds.), Fostering self-regulated learning through ICT (pp. 89–104). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRef

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023CrossRef

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.12183CrossRef

Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375367CrossRef

Fathi, J., Ahmadnejad, M., & Yousofi, N. (2019). Effects of blog-mediated writing instruction on L2 writing motivation, self-efficacy, and self-regulation: A mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2019.14722

Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority-and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00042-XCrossRef

Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903197883CrossRef

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)80110-6CrossRef

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRef

Geranpayeh, A. (2003). A quick review of the English Quick Placement Test. Research Notes Quarterly, 12(3), 8–10.

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-forenglish-as-second-language-students-162203395.html

Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 8(6). Retrieved from https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1625

Han, J., & Hiver, P. (2018). Genre-based L2 writing instruction and writing-specific psychological factors: The dynamics of change. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.03.001CrossRef

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

Hashemi, M. R., Khodadadi, E., & Yazdanmehr, E. (2009). Learners’ evaluation of EFL writing tasks in Iran’s ESOL exam preparation courses. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 52(212), 77–106.

Hetthong, R., & Teo, A. (2013). Does writing self-efficacy correlate with and predict writing performance? International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(1), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v.2n.1p.157CrossRef

Higgins, C. A., & Bligh, B. (2006). Formative computer based assessment in diagram based domains. Paper presented at the ITiCSE06: 11th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Bologna, Italy.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed., pp. 1–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Bridging the gap between expert-novice differences: The model-based feedback approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782564CrossRef

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

Jarvela, S., Malmberg, J., & Koivuniemi, M. (2016). Recognizing socially shared regulation by using the temporal sequences of online chat and logs in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 42, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.006CrossRef

Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, M., Meschi, R. (2020). L2 writers’ processing of teacher vs. computer-generated feedback. Two Quarterly Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning University of Tabriz, 12(26), 175–215. https://doi.org/10.22034/elt.2020.11472.

Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers and Education, 104, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001CrossRef

Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001CrossRef

Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., & Foltz, P. W. (2003). Automated scoring and annotation of essays with the Intelligent Essay Assessor. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 87–112). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

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

Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. L. (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9153-6CrossRef

Lehmann, T., Hahnlein, I., & Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Cognitive, metacognitive and motivational perspectives on preflection in self-regulated online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.051CrossRef

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.2014.10.004CrossRef

Liaw, S.-S., & Huang, H.-M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments. Computers and Education, 60(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.015CrossRef

Lopez-Vicuna, I. (2009). The violence of writing: Literature and discontent in Roberto Bolaño’s ‘Chilean’ novels. Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies, 18(2–3), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569320903361838CrossRef

Maftoon, P., & Pahlavani, P. (2014). The impact of using computer-aided argument mapping (CAAM) on the improvement of Iranian EFL learners’ writing self-efficacy. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics World, 7(3), 1–12.

McCormick, R. (2004). Collaboration: The challenge of ICT. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ITDE.0000026495.10503.95CrossRef

Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2007). Self-efficacy of college intermediate French students: Relation to achievement and motivation. Language Learning, 57(3), 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00421.xCrossRef

Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: A literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 576–600. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326083CrossRef

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

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090CrossRef

Pahlavani, P., & Maftoon, P. (2015). The impact of using computer-aided argument mapping (CAAM) on the improvement of Iranian EFL learners’ writing self-regulation. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 34(2), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2015.3528

Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement. In R. J. Riding and S. G. Rayner (Eds.), Self perception (Vol. 2nd). Ablex Publishing.

Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual (6th ed.). Open University Press.

Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. (2017). Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review, 22, 74–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.004CrossRef

Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004CrossRef

Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). ‘If only I had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4CrossRef

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.

Saricaoglu, A. (2018). The impact of automated feedback on L2 learners’ written causal explanations. ReCALL, 31(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401800006XCrossRef

Schneckenberg, D., Ehlers, U., & Adelsberger, H. (2011). Web 2.0 and competence-oriented design of learning-Potentials and implications for higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 747–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01092.xCrossRef

Scott, J. (2006). Socialist joy in the writing of Langston Hughes. University of Missouri Press.

Sherafati, N., Largani, F. M., & Amini, S. (2020). Exploring the effect of computer-mediated teacher feedback on the writing achievement of Iranian EFL learners: Does motivation count? Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4591–4613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10177-5CrossRef

Soltanpour, F., & Valizadeh, M. (2018). A flipped writing classroom: Effects on EFL learners’ argumentative essays. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.1p.5CrossRef

Tai, H. C. (2016). Effects of collaborative online learning on EFL learners’ writing performance and self-efficacy. English Language Teaching, 9(5), 119–133.CrossRef

Torkzadeh, G., Chang, J.C.-J., & Demirhan, D. (2006). A contingency model of computer and Internet self-efficacy. Information and Management, 43(4), 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.02.001CrossRef

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.xCrossRef

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.2004.02.003CrossRef

Vakili, S., & Ebadi, S. (2019). Exploring EFL learners’ developmental errors in academic writing through face-to-face and computer-mediated dynamic assessment. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1698616CrossRef

Van der Kleij, F. M., Eggen, T. J. H. M., Timmers, C. F., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2012). Effects of feedback in a computer-based assessment for learning. Computers and Education, 58(1), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.020CrossRef

Wang, Y.-J., Shang, H.-F., & Briody, P. (2013). Exploring the impact of using automated writing evaluation in English as a foreign language university students’ writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 234–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.655300CrossRef

Wilson, J., & Czik, A. (2016). Automated essay evaluation software in English language arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality. Computers and Education, 100, 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.004CrossRef

Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9080-9CrossRef

Woodrow, L. (2011). College English writing affect: Self-efficacy and anxiety. System, 39(4), 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.10.017CrossRef

Zarei, A. A., & Hashemipour, M. (2015). The effect of computer-assisted language instruction on improving EFL learners’ autonomy and motivation. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 40–58.

Zhang, X. (2017). Reading–writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development. Language Teaching Research, 21(2), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815623291CrossRef

Zheng, C., Liang, J.-C., Yang, Y.-F., & Tsai, C.-C. (2016). The relationship between Chinese university students’ conceptions of language learning and their online self-regulation. System, 57, 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.01.005CrossRef

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2(2), 173–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01322178CrossRef

Titel: The potentiality of computer-based feedback in fostering EFL learners’ writing performance, self-regulation ability, and self-efficacy beliefs
verfasst von: Narjis Sherafati
Farzad Mahmoudi Largani
Publikationsdatum: 08.02.2022
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Journal of Computers in Education / Ausgabe 1/2023
Print ISSN: 2197-9987
Elektronische ISSN: 2197-9995
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00221-3

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 "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2023

Narrative inquiry for CALL teacher preparation programs amidst the COVID-19 pandemic: language teachers’ technological needs and suggestions

Systematic review on mobile collaborative learning for engineering education

E-content development of English language courses during COVID-19: a comprehensive analysis of students’ satisfaction

Exploring the role of sociability, sense of community and course satisfaction on students' engagement in flipped classroom supported by facebook groups

Mediated transfer: impact on programming misconceptions

What happens to your body during learning with computer-based environments? Exploring negative academic emotions using psychophysiological measurements