| تعداد نشریات | 24 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 850 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,554 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 13,331,387 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 11,544,429 |
Impact of Direct Corrective Feedback (DCF) Through Electronic Portfolio (EP) Platform on the components of Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing across Levels of Language Proficiency | ||
| Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills) | ||
| مقاله 2، دوره 36، شماره 2، مهر 2017، صفحه 39-74 اصل مقاله (420.84 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/jtls.2017.24570.2204 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Rajab Esfandiari1؛ Hussein Meihami* 2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor of TEFL at Imam Khomeini International University | ||
| 2PhD candidate in TEFL at Shiraz University | ||
| چکیده | ||
| While some researchers have questioned the efficacy of corrective feedback (CF), other researchers believe that CF can be effective if implemented through new technology types, including e-portfolio (EP). However, whether EP can be used as a medium of providing CF for language learners at different levels of language proficiency is still unknown. The purpose of the present study, therefore, was twofold: (a) to examine the writing performance of EFL learners across three levels of language proficiency receiving direct corrective feedback (DCF) via EP, and (b) to investigate which language proficiency group benefits more from DCF provided via EP. For the purposes of the present study, sixty (60) Iranian EFL learners who were divided into three levels of language proficiency at Sharif language center in Tehran, Iran participated in this study. The results of data analysis showed statistically significant differences for two components of writing—content, and mechanics—between beginning and intermediate, and beginning and advanced language learners. The results also showed that the higher the language proficiency level of language learners, the more they benefit from the provision of DCF through EP. These findings suggest that EP may be a viable option to supply Iranian EFL learners across levels of language proficiency with DCF. The article concludes with a call for testing the threshold-level hypothesis that may exist for language learners to use EP. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| direct corrective feedback؛ e-portfolio؛ proficiency level؛ threshold level | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.
Baturay, M. H., & Daloglu, A. (2010). E-portfolio assessment in an online English language course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(4), 413-428.
Berlin, L. N. (2005). Contextualizing College ESL Classroom Praxis: A Participatory Approach to Effective Instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research Journal, 12(3), 409-341.
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(2), 191-205.
Blanton, L. L. (2008). Step-by-step writing book (1-3): A standards-based approach. HEINLE: Australia.
Brush, T., Glazewski, K. D., & Hew, K. F. (2008). Development of an instrument to measure preservice teachers’ technology skills, technology beliefs, and technology barriers. Computers in the Schools, 25(1), 112-125.
Burstein, J., Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C. (2004). Automated essay evaluation: The Criterion online writing service. AI Magazine, 25(3), 27–36.
Castro Sánchez, J. J., & Alemán, E. C., (2011). Teachers’ opinion survey on the use of ICT tools to support attendance-based teaching. Journal Computers and Education, 56(3), 911-915.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C.C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Educational Technology and Society, 13(1), 63-73.
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.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 741-753.
Chau, J., & Cheng, G. (2010). Towards understanding the potential of e-portfolios for independent learning: A qualitative study. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(7), 932-950.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
DOKEOS. (2014). Retrieved November 28, 2014 from www.dokeos.com.
Erice, D., & Ertas, A. (2011). The impact of e-portfolio on foreign language writing skills. Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 44(2), 73-94.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes. A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-10.
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2004). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., & Rabie, B. (2011). The job of teaching writing: Teacher views of responding to writing. Writing and Pedagogy, 3(1), 39–77.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329.
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 18-22.
Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Roberts, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000). Perspectives, Problems, & practices in treating written error. Colloquium presented at International TESOL Convention, Vancouver, BC.
Ferris, D., Brown, J., Liu, H., Eugenia, M., & Stine, A. (2011). Responding to L2 Students in College Writing Classes: Teacher Perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 207-234.
Fiori, M. L. (2005). The development of grammatical competence through synchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 567-602.
Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 329-344.
Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 74–101.
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70-105.
Guénette, D. (2008). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40-53.
Guénette, D. (2012). The pedagogy of error correction: Surviving the written corrective feedback challenge. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 117-126.
Guénette, D., & Lyster, R. (2013). Written corrective feedback and its challenges for pre-service ESL teachers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(2), 129-153.
Hackmann, D. G., & Alsbury, T.L. (2005). Standards-based leadership preparation program improvement through the use of portfolio assessments. Educational Considerations, 32(2), 36-45.
Hassaskhah, J., & Sharifi, A. (2011). The role of portfolio assessment and reflection on process writing. Asian EFL Journal, 13(1), 193-231.
Hegelheimer, V., & Tower, D. (2004). Using call in the classroom: analyzing student interactions within an authentic call program. System, 32(2), 185-205.
Himpsl-Gutermann, K., & Baumgartner, P. (2010). Evaluation of e-portfolio systems. In A. Buzzetto-More (Eds.), E-portfolio Paradigm: Informing, Educating, Assessing, and Managing with E-portfolios, (pp.19–33). Santa Clara: Informing Science Press.
Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V., & Hughey, J. (1981) Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Kahtani, S., A. (1999). Electronic portfolios in ESL writing: An alternative approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(3), 261-268.
Kam, R., Tang, S. K., & Lee, L. (2016). The impact of technology-supported and triangulated writing tasks on a pilot interdisciplinary undergraduate subject for construction disciplines. Computers and Composition, 40(2), 131-150.
Koc, M. (2005). Implications of learning theories for effective technology integration and preservice teacher training: A critical literature review. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 2(1), 2-18.
Kondo-Brown, K. (2002). A FACETS analysis of rater bias in measuring Japanese L2 writing performance. Language Testing, 19(1), 3–31.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Kupelian, M. (2001). The use of email in the L2 classroom: An overview. Second Language Learning & Teaching, 1(1): Retrieved from http://www.usq.edu.au/opacs/cllt/sllt/1-1/ Kupelian01.htm.
Lavolette, E., Polio, C., & Kahng, J. (2014). The accuracy of computer-assisted feedback and students' responses to it. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 50–68.
Lee, E., Chan, C., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their collaborative knowledge building. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 277–307.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 69–85.
Lee, J., & Schallert, D., L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31(4), 713-739.
Levin, T. & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-based classrooms: A developmental view. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 417-441.
Li, S. (2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 373-396.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press
Lorenzo, G., & Ittelson, J. (2005). An Overview of e-Portfolios. Retrieved January 18, 2016, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3001.pdf
Loucky, J. P. (2002). Assessing the potential of computerized bilingual dictionaries for enhancing English vocabulary learning. P. N. D., Lewis (Eds.). The changing face of CALL (pp. 123-137). CRC Press.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–356.
McMahon, G. (2009). Critical thinking and ICT integration in a Western Australian secondary school. Educational Technology and Society, 12(2), 269-281.
Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 82-99.
Nassaji, H. (2007). The development of spelling and orthographic knowledge in English as an L2: A longitudinal case study. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 77-98.
Peters, M., Chevrier, J., LeBlanc, R., Fortin, G., & Malette, J. (2006). The e-portfolio: A learning tool for Pre-Service Teachers. In A. Jafari & C. Kaufman (eds.), Handbook of research on e-portfolios (pp. 313- 326). Hershey: Idea Group Reference.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language Learning, 53(4), 649-702.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(4), 493-527.
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (eds.), Modelling and Assessing Second Language Development (pp. 23-75). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Read, J., & Kroll, Designing and assessing effective classroom writing assignments for NES and ESL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(1), 17-41.
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. (3rd ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1): 83-93.
Saeedi, Z., & Meihami, H. (2015). E-portfolio as a corrective platform towards EFL students' overall/componential writing performance. Teaching English with technology, 15(4), 76-97.
Saeedi, Z., Meihami, H., & Husseini, F. (2014). E-Mail Platform and Its Effects on Providing Corrective Feedback to EFL Students. English Language Teaching (ELT), 1(2), 41-65.
Salaberry, R. M. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 5-27.
Shehadeh, A., (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286-305.
Shepherd, G. E., & Bolliger, D. U. (2011). The effects of electronic portfolio tools on online students’ perceived support and cognitive load. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 142-149.
Shintani, N. (2015). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: a case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8(3), 279-294.
Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 517-538.
Shiotsu, T. & Weir C. J. (2007). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary breadth in the prediction of reading comprehension test performance. Language Testing, 24(1), 99-128.
Smith, B. (2003) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38-57.
Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119.
Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19(1), 51-65.
Stockwell, G. (2007). Vocabulary on the move: Investigating an intelligent mobile phone-based vocabulary tutor. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(4): 365-383.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tahriri, A., Hassaskhah, J., Mozafarian Pour, A. (2015). The impact of synchronous computer-mediated communication on EFL learners’ motivation. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 4(2), 3-17.
Thang, M., S. Lee, S., Y., & Zulkifli, F., N. (2012). The role of the electronic portfolio in enhancing Information and Communication Technology and English language skills: the voices of six Malaysian undergraduates. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(3), 277-293.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.
Truscott, J. (2004) Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 337-343.
Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296.
VanKooten, C., & Berkley, B. (2016). Messy problem-exploring through video in first-year writing: Assessing what counts. Computers and Composition, 40(2), 151-163.
Weigle, S. C. (2002) Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,616 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,574 |
||