According to the literature, flipped teaching is a relatively new pedagogical approach in which the typical activities of classroom lectures followed by homework in common teaching practice are reversed in order, and most often integrated or supplemented with some types of instructional materials, such as instructional videos or PowerPoint files. This experimental study, using a pre-test-treatment-posttest-delayed posttest design, was aimed at investigating the effect of flipped instruction on Iranian EFL learners' quality of argumentative essays. The participants were 55 students, who were assigned to two groups: the flipped classroom (FC) and the traditional classroom (TC). Each group received 3 sessions of treatment. First, whether there was any significant difference between the FC and TC in the overall quality of the essays was investigated. The FC group significantly outperformed the TC one. Then, whether the difference between the groups varied over time was explored, and it was revealed that the FC was still significantly superior over the TC. Next, whether there would be any significant change in the FC in the long run was examined, and no significant change was seen. The promising results found in FC group can be attributed to not only the flipped instruction but also the process of actively engaging the learners in their learning in addition to incorporating different techniques, such as the video screencasting, collaborative writing, as well as in-class teacher-learner interaction and negotiation because it is argued that the crucial point in flipped instruction is how teachers best use in-class-time with students.

No abstract

This study aimed at comparing the effects of reflective learning portfolio (RLP) and dialogue journal writing (DJW) on the Iranian EFL learners' grammatical accuracy in writing as well as their overall writing performance. 60 Iranian EFL learners between the ages of 17 to 30 who were studying at general English courses were selected based on their performance on the Nelson English Language Test. They were assigned randomly into two experimental groups: DJW and RLP. Each group received 14-sessions of treatment. Two samples of Task 2 of General Module of IELTS were used for the pretests and posttests. Each essay was scored independently by three raters. The final score consisted of the average score of the three raters.The findings revealed that the gains in the RLP group's grammatical accuracy and overall writing performance were significantly better than that of the DJW group. This could have been due to the influence of reflection with support of a mentor or collaborator as well as the efficacy of intentional learning over incidental one and explicit learning over implicit one. The results have some main implications for syllabus designers, material developers, and language teachers.

This quantitative quasi-experimental study, which followed a pretest-posttest-delayed posttest design, was aimed at investigating the effect of individualized technology-mediated feedback (henceforth, ITMF) on the overall quality of Iranian EFL learners’ argumentative essays. The effect of ITMF, as the experimental treatment, was compared with the common written corrective feedback (henceforth, CWCF) strategies as the control treatment. 57 learners, studying at general EFL courses at upper-intermediate level, formed the participants. They were assigned to two groups: ITMF and CWCF, which, in this study, is meant as the pen-and-paper form of direct and indirect feedback. Each group received six sessions of treatment. The writing tasks and tests were all of argumentative type. First, whether there was any significant difference between the ITMF and CWCF in the overall quality of the essays was investigated. The ITMF group significantly outperformed the CWCF one. Then, whether the difference between the groups varied over time was explored, and it was revealed that the ITMF was still significantly superior over the CWCF. Next, whether there would be any significant change in the ITMF in the long term was examined, and no change was seen. The study supports the advocates of screencasting feedback, revision and teacher-learner negotiation following the feedback.

This mixed-methods study aimed at investigating the Turkish higher education learners’ attitudes towards Emergency Online Teaching (EOT) under the Covid-19 pandemic in order to discover the benefits and drawbacks of it. The participants were 251 higher education learners who received the EOT during the Covid-19 crisis in Turkey. Both qualitative and quantitative data were gathered by means of a questionnaire in August 2020. Quantitative data were obtained via closed-ended questions with the response on a Likert-scale format. Qualitative data were acquired through open-ended questions. The results showed that the hurried shift to an online instruction by universities in Turkey was not fully satisfactory and the majority of the respondents (74.1%) preferred face-to-face learning to the online format, however, the participants also stated that they felt safer during this pandemic disease thanks to the availability of distant online education. The drawbacks they mentioned included inadequate technological infrastructure or facilities, lack of sufficient teacher-student and peer interaction, lack of learners’ attention and concentration, tediousness of online lessons, learners’ inadequate engagement in class activities, as well as the absence of comprehensive assessment procedure.

Based on the literature, revision requirement (i.e., when students rewrite their whole text based on the teacher feedback) can perhaps be a necessary intermediate step towards the development of written accuracy because learners have more time to think about and process the corrections; however, some state drawing learner’s attention can be achieved by asking them to take time to look over the received feedback and carefully examine their errors. This quantitative quasi-experimental study, which followed a pretest-treatment-posttest-delayed posttest design, investigated the effects of revision mediation versus attention mediation on EFL learners’ syntactic accuracy of their argumentative essays. 83 Iranian EFL learners, studying at upper-intermediate level were assigned to three groups: comprehensive direct corrective feedback plus a revision requirement (DCF/+R), comprehensive DCF plus a time to pay careful attention to and study the errors and received feedback (DCF/+S) and the control group that received the comprehensive DCF without any extra assignment (DCF/-R,-S). Each group received three sessions of treatment. The existence of any statistically significant differences among the three groups with regard to each received treatment was investigated both in the short and long term. It was found that both revision requirement (DCF/+R) and careful attention requirement (DCF/+S) significantly outperformed the group that only received the feedback. Nevertheless, it was also proved that the group that was required to pay careful attention to and study the feedback (DCF/+S) significantly outperformed the one that experienced the revision requirement (DCF/+R). Discussion focuses on the importance of two levels of awareness: noticing and understanding.

This experimental study, using a pretest-treatment-posttest design, compared the effects of focused direct written corrective feedback and additional writing practice on L2 learners' written syntactic complexity. The participants were 60 Iranian elementary EFL learners, whose L2 proficiency as well as L2 writing syntactic complexity and accuracy were controlled by administering the Oxford Quick Placement Test and a paragraph writing test. They were assigned to two groups: Focused direct corrective feedback (FDCF) and additional writing practice without feedback (No CF). The investigation included five sessions and lasted for three weeks. Every session, each participant wrote a paragraph of descriptive type in class. The experimental group received FDCF, while the control (i.e. No CF) group was provided only with additional writing practice. Lu's (2010) web-based L2 Syntactic Complexity Analyzer was utilized to calculate the five indices of syntactic complexity measures, including mean length of clause (MLC), mean length of sentence (MLS), mean length of T-unit (MLT), clauses per sentence (C/S), and verb phrases per T-unit (VP/T). The MANOVA test revealed no statistically significant difference between the two groups.

No abstract