2015 | 15 | 4 | 76-97
Article title


Title variants
Languages of publication
This paper aims at accentuating and exploring the effect of using electronic portfolio (EP) platform in providing corrective feedback (CF) on EFL students’ overall and micro-componential writing performance. Moreover, by conducting a semi-structured interview, the study seeks to obtain students’ attitudes towards the use of EP in three aspects, namely awareness, work/activity, and pros and cons. A total of 34 intermediate EFL students ranging from 20-25 years of age participated in this study. While students in the experimental group (N=17) received their corrective feedback via EP, the control group’s (N=17) writing assignments were corrected using traditional paper-and-pen portfolio. An EP platform was designed using DOKEOS environment during eight instructional sessions. The results of this investigation revealed that providing corrective feedback on EFL students’ writing via EP has a constructive effect on students’ overall writing performance (p=.02) and on writing micro-components except for idea development and idea wrap-up. The information obtained from the interview indicated that the EFL students developed affirmative attitudes towards the three aspects of using EP, namely, awareness, work/activity, and pros and cons. The findings of this study bear some implications for material developers and writing teachers and highlight the effective role EP plays in expediting CF on students’ writing and equipping them with the ubiquitous technology to get involved in writing activities with a positive standpoint.
Physical description
  • Allameh Tabatabai’ University
  • Allameh Tabatabai’ University
  • AbuSeileek, A., & Abualsha’r, A. (2014). Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners’ writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 76-95.
  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Alwraikat, M. (2012). Graduate students’ attitudes towards the use of electronic-portfolios in the college of educational sciences at the University of Jordan. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 2 (12), 154-163.
  • Barrett, H.C., & Wilkerson, J. (2004). Conflicting paradigms in electronic portfolio approaches: Choosing an electronic portfolio strategy that matches your conceptual framework. Retrieved December 3, 2014, from
  • Baturay, M.H., & Daloglu, A. (2010). E-portfolio assessment in an online English language course. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 23, 413–428.
  • Blanton, L., L. (2008). Step by Step Writing: A Standards-based Approach. Boston: Heinle.
  • Cambridge, B. (2004). Electronic portfolios: Why now? Educause Live Teleconference. Retrieved December 3, 2014 from
  • Campbell, A.P. (2003). Weblogs for use with ESL classes. The Internet TESL Journal, 9 (2). Retrieved December 1, 2014 from
  • Chang, Y., L. (2014). Characteristics of motivated L2 class groups: From language teachers’ and students’ perspectives. English Language Teaching. 7(7), 159-167.
  • Charney, D. (1994). The effect of hypertext on processes of reading and writing. In C. Selfe & S. Hilligoss (Eds.) Literacy and Computers: The Complications of Teaching and Learning with Technology (pp.238–63). New York: Modern Language Association of America.
  • Dippold, D. (2009). Peer feedback through blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an advanced German class. ReCALL, 21(1), 18-36.
  • DOKEOS (2014). Retrieved November 28, 2014 from
  • Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • 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. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Fielke, J., & Quinn, D. (2011). Improving student engagement with self-assessment through e-portfolio. Proceeding of the AAEE Conference, Fremantle, Western Australia.
  • Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in Second Language Acquisition: Introduction to the special issue. Modern Language Journal, 82, 299-307.
  • Gipps, C. V. (2002). Sociocultural perspectives on assessment. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for Life in the 21st Century (pp. 73–83). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  • He, L., & Shi, L. (2012). Topical knowledge and ESL writing. Language Testing, 29(3), 443-464.
  • Hillyer, J., & Ley, T. C. (1996). Portfolios and second graders’ self-assessments of their development as writers. Reading Improvement, 133, 148–159.
  • Himpsl-Gutermann, K., & Baumgartner, P. (2010). Evaluation of e-portfolio systems. In A. Buzzetto-More (Ed.), E-portfolio Paradigm: Informing, Educating, Assessing, and Managing with E-portfolios (pp.19–33). Santa Clara: Informing Science Press.
  • Hoffman, R. (1994). Powerful, personal: Electronic mail and the L2 writing process. ReCALL Journal, 6(2), 53–62.
  • Hung, S-T., A. (2012). A washback study on e-portfolio assessment in an English as a Foreign Language teacher preparation program. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 25(1), 21-36.
  • Kahtani, S. A. (1999). Electronic portfolios in ESL writing: An alternative approach. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 12(3), 261-268.
  • Kupelian, M. (2001). The use of email in the L2 classroom: An overview. Second Language Learning & Teaching, 1(1). Retrieved November 1, 2015 from
  • Martin-Beltran, M., & Chen, P. J. (2013). From monologue to dialogue: A case study on mediated feedback in a transnational asynchronous online writing tutorial. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 17(1), 145-150.
  • Meyer, E., Abrami, P., Scherzer, R., & Wade, A. (2009). Electronic portfolios in the classroom: Factors impacting teachers’ integration of new technologies and new pedagogies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
  • Negari, G. M. (2011). A study on strategy instruction and EFL learners’ writing skill. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1, 299–307.
  • Norton, P. & Wiburg, K. (1998).Teaching with Technology. Orlando: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
  • Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.
  • Perlman, R. L., Ross, P. T., Christner, J., & Lypson, M. L. (2011). Faculty reflections on the implementation of socio-cultural eportfolio assessment tool. Reflective Practice, 12, 375–388.
  • Popham, W. J. (2005). Students’ attitudes count. Educational Leadership, 62(5), 84-85.
  • Recep Ş. A., & Aysel, Ş. (2010). How can the use of blog software facilitate the writing process of English language learners? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 183-197.
  • Reed, M. (1990). The effect of computer-and-writing instruction on prospective English teachers’ attitudes toward and perceived uses of computers in writing instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(1), 3-27.
  • Royster, D. C., Kimharris, M., & Schoeps, N. (1999). Dispositions of college mathematics students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 30, 317-333.
  • Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 133-164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Saeedi, Z. (2013). Care with Computer Assisted Technology. In D. Tafazoli & S. C. Chirimbu (Eds.), Language and Technology (pp. 40-47). Tehran: Khate Sefid Publication.
  • Saeedi, Z., Meihami, H., & Husseini, F. (2014). Email platform and its effects on providing corrective feedback to EFL students. English Language Teaching. 1(2), 43-67.
  • Sauro, S., (2009). Computer mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning and Technology, 13(1), 96-120.
  • Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.). Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 165-209). London: Academic Press.
  • Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158.
  • 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, 327–369.
  • Truscott, J., & Hsu, A.Y-P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305.
  • Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 270-275.
  • Zimmerman, B. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social-cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),.Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic Press.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.