Abstract-The present study investigated the effects of direct and metalinguistic electronic feedback (Efeedback) on Iranian EFL learners' writing accuracy and attitudes toward computer assisted language learning (CALL). Twenty nine students in two intact English writing classes comprised the participants of the study. A mixed-method design was used for data collection and analysis. In addition to the instruction provided similarly in both classes, based on random assignment, the students in one group received direct electronic corrective feedback (DECF) using Ginger software. In the other class, the students received metalinguistic electronic corrective feedback (MECF) in the form of error codes provided through Markin4 software. Results revealed that the use of E-feedback developed the learners' writing accuracy and attitudes toward CALL. However, there were no significant differences between the final overall writing accuracy scores of the DECF and MECF groups and their gain scores. Regarding writing accuracy components (i.e., structure, vocabulary, and punctuation), although the MECF group obtained higher scores in three components, a statistically significant difference between the two groups was found only in terms of vocabulary gain scores. Finally, in the interviews, the students in both groups referred to some barriers in the implementation of CALL in their context as well as some of its merits.Index Terms-writing accuracy, corrective feedback, direct and metalinguistic feedback, electronic feedback, CALL
The present study was conducted to compare the impact of direct and metalinguistic written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners' grammatical knowledge. The participants were a convenient sample of students in two intact writing classes. The instruction provided in both groups was similar; however, the students in one group received direct feedback and the students in the other group received metalinguistic feedback in the form of error codes on writing accuracy (i.e., grammar, vocabulary, and punctuation) of their in-class written texts. Moreover, all the students took a grammar test serving as pre-and posttests before and after the treatment. In addition to the computation of gain scores, descriptive statistics and a mixed between-within subjects ANOVA were run to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics revealed that the grammatical knowledge of the learners in both groups developed as a result of the two types of feedback; nonetheless, there was not a statistically significant difference between the students' performance on the grammar test before and after the treatment. Furthermore, although the direct feedback seemed to be more effective in improving grammatical knowledge, no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups' gain scores on the grammar test. Accordingly, it was concluded that either of the feedback types may be employed to effectively develop EFL learners' knowledge of grammar.
In this article, the authors examine different ways of using the Internet to receive feedback, and discuss advantages of language learners' use of the Internet to improve their own writing. In effect, the article elaborates on how Internet-mediated corrective feedback (IMCF) can be used as an efficient tool by language learners to become competent writers. The authors show how artifact-mediated options offered by the Internet such as web-based search engines and corpus databases can help language learners write more efficiently. In addition, forums on writing problems can serve as another source of feedback for the learners. Accordingly, the authors suggest that IMCF be incorporated in feedback taxonomies as a new category, and that language teachers should teach their students how to benefit from one of the most valuable assets of the 21st century-that is, the Internet-in order to enable learners to correct and revise their own writing.
Gender representation has long been studied in both verbal and visual modes of ELT textbooks. However, regarding the visual mode, research has mainly focused on superficial analyses of how often each gender appears in different roles rather than on how the two genders are represented. The tools proposed in Kress and van Leeuwen"s (2006) social semiotics framework, however, permit deep analysis of images taking into consideration how pictorial elements are shown both alone and in relation to other pictorial elements, on the one hand, and the viewers on the other. Following the above-mentioned framework, the present study applied the three dimensions of representational, compositional and interactive meaning presented to 16 photographs randomly selected from the Interchange (Third Edition) series (Richards, 2005) to explore gender portrayals and disclose ideologies in the visual mode of the series. Qualitative data analysis showed some ideologies and stereotypical portrayals, each of which appeared either in one or a few photographs. Taken together, the findings indicated gender bias in favor of men in the series.
The purpose of the present study was to investigate individual factors that mediate Iranian EFL students’ engagement with feedback they receive on their writing. In fact, the purpose behind such a consideration was to identify the factors that may contribute to students' using or ignoring feedback as well as the emotions they may have during or after receiving feedback. A convenient sample of 10 students was recruited from an intact writing class in which students were usually provided with different types of feedback in both oral and written forms. The study enjoyed a qualitative case study design. The findings of the focused-group interviews revealed that students favored selective, individual and dialogic feedback by the teacher. In addition, they ignored feedback when they were not interested to learn or when the person providing it was not of interest to them. Finally, they liked to receive feedback and anxiety reduced their uptake from the received feedback. The findings are discussed and implications are suggested in relation to teaching writing.
The present study examined the use of grammatical cohesive features in two types of paragraphs (chronologyvs. cause-effect) written by EFL learners and native speakers. In addition, the study investigated if the use of grammatical cohesive devices affected raters' evaluation of the paragraphs written by the EFL learners. To investigate the non-native speakers' performances, 60 paragraphs) 30 cause-effect and 30 chronology paragraphs) written by 30 intermediate Iranian EFL learners were examined. Furthermore, to investigate those of native speakers, 20 paragraphs (10 cause-effect and 10 chronology paragraphs) were randomly selected from among the sample paragraphs presented in books teaching paragraph writing written by English native speakers. To analyze the data, Halliday and Hasan's (1976) taxonomy of cohesive devices was used, and MANOVA was conducted. To investigate raters' judgments, four raters were asked to rate the paragraphs written by six randomly selected learners. The results showed that EFL learners more frequently used reference, conjunction, ellipsis and substitution, respectively in their chronology and cause-effect paragraphs. However, in their paragraphs of chronology, native speakers more frequently used reference, conjunction, ellipsis and substitution, respectively whereas in their paragraphs of cause-effect, they frequently used reference, conjunction, substitution, and ellipsis, respectively. A comparison of the performance of native speakers and non-native speakers revealed that native speakers used more reference in their paragraphs than non-natives did. As for raters' judgments, the findings indicated that cohesion in the paragraphs was generally ignored by some raters.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.