USING COMPUTER-MEDIATED CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK MODES IN DEVELOPING STUDENTS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE

• Authors: Sabah Ibrahim Al-Olimat , Ali Farhan AbuSeileek
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This study explored the effect of computer-mediated corrective feedback on the 10th grade EFL students’ performance in the writing skill. Seventy-two 10th grade female students at Al Hammra secondary school for girls situated in Mafraq (Jordan) were selected as the study sample. They were randomly assigned into four groups, three experimental groups (18 in each) and one control group (18 students). The three experimental groups were taught using the computer-mediated corrective feedback modes including teachers’ feedback (students who received feedback only from the teacher), students’ feedback (students who provided and received feedback from their peers), and both (students who received and provided feedback from students and teacher). The control group was taught using computer-mediated communication. However, it neither provided nor received corrective feedback. Findings of the study reveal that there were significant differences between the mean scores of the control group and the experimental groups due to the method of teaching in favor of the experimental groups which received corrective feedback. Furthermore, the findings revealed that there was a significant effect for the mean scores between teachers’ feedback, students’ feedback or both, in favor of both where students received corrective feedback from their peers and the teacher.

Keywords

EN

corrective feedback; error correction; word processor

• Publisher: IATEFL Poland Computer Special Interest Group & University of Nicosia
• Journal: Teaching English with Technology
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 15
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 3-30

Contributors

author

Sabah Ibrahim Al-Olimat

• Al al-Bayt University
• Al al-Bayt University

author

Ali Farhan AbuSeileek

• Al al-Bayt University

References

• Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effects of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157-167.
• Abualsha’r, A., & Abuseileek, A . (2013). Using concordancing and word processing to improve EFL graduate students’ written English. The JALT CALL Journal, 9(1), 59–77.‏
• AbuSeileek, A. (2013). Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners' writing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(4), 319–333.
• AbuSeileek, A. (2006) The use of word processor for teaching writing to EFL learners in King Saud University. Journal of King Saud University, 19(2) 1-15.
• AbuSeileek, A. & Abu Sa’aleek, A. (2012). Computer assisted language learning: merits and demerits. Language in India Strength for Today and Bright Hope for Tomorrow, 12(4), 23-36.
• AbuSeileek, A, & Abualsha'r, A. (2014). Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners’ writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 76-95.
• AbuSeileek, A., & Rabab'ah, G. (2013). Discourse functions and vocabulary use in English language learners' synchronous computer-mediated communication. Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61.
• Adams, R., Nuevo, A., &Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SAL: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner- learner interactions? The Modern Language Learning, 95 (supplementary issue), 42-63.
• Alghazo, K., BaniAbdelrahman, M., &Abu Qbeitah, A. (2009). The effect of teachers' error feedback on AlHussein Bin Talal university students' self-correction ability. European Journal of Social Sciences, 12(1), 142-156.
• Al-Khasawneh, F. (2010).Writing for academic purposes: problems faced by Arab postgraduate students of the College of Business. ESP World, 9(2), 1-23.
• Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in l2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insight, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1-27.
• Bitchener, J., East., M. & Cartner, H. (2010). The Effectiveness of Providing Second Language (L2) Writers with On-Line Written Corrective Feedback. Wellington, NZ: AkoAotearoa.
• Burt, M. (1975).Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 53-63.
• Chan, J., & Lam, S. (2010). Effects of different evaluative feedback on students’ self-efficacy in learning. Annual Conference of the Australian Psychological Society, 38, 37–58.
• Cherrington, R. (2000). Error analysis. In Byram, M. (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 198-199). London; New York: Routledge.
• Ciftci, H., & Kocoglu, Z. (2012). Effects of peer e-feedback on Turkish EFL students’ writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 61-84.
• Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3-18.
• Ellis, R. Sheen, Y. Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353-371.
• Evans, N., Hartshorn, K., & Tuioti, E, (2010). Written corrective feedback: practitioners’ perspectives. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 47-77.
• Gündüz, N. (2005).Computer assisted language learning. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 1(2), 191-214.
• Hashemnezhad, H., & Mohammadnejad, S. (2012). A case for direct and indirect feedback: The other side of coin. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 230-239.
• Hosseini, S. (2013). The impact of asynchronous computer-mediated corrective feedback on increasing Iranian EFL learners’ correct use of present tenses. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4(1), 138-153.
• Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Context and Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Jdetawy L. (2011). Problems encountered by Arab EFL learners. Language in India, 11, 19-27.
• Jodaie, M.,Farrokhi, F., & Zoghi, M. (2011). A comparative study of EFL teachers’ and intermediate high school students’ perceptions of written corrective feedback on grammatical errors. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 36-48.
• Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. London: Pergamon Press Inc.
• Lin, W., & Yang, Sh. (2011). Exploring students' perceptions of integrating wiki technology and peer feedback into English writing courses. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(2), 88-103.
• Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: an experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1-14.
• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
• Marboyeh, A. (2011). The impact of teacher feedback and peer feedback on the writing performance of EFL students with different learning styles. International Online Language Conference (IOLC), 2, 445-452.
• Matsumura, S., & Hann, G. (2004). Computer anxiety and students’ preferred feedback methods in EFL writing. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 403-415.
• Ministry of Education, (2006).General Guidelines and General and Specific Outcomes for the English Language. Amman: Ministry of Education.
• Motallebzadeh, K., & Amirabadi, S. (2011). Online international feedback in second language writing: Through peer and tutor? MJAL, 3(2), 156-174.
• Pan, Y. (2010). The effect of teacher error feedback on the accuracy of EFL student writing. TEFLIN Journal, 21(1), 57-77.
• Petchprasert, A. (2012). Feedback in second language teaching and learning. US-China Foreign Language, 10(4), 1112-1120.
• Rabiee, M. (2010). Facilitating learning to gather in Iranian context: Three collaborative oral feedback models in EFL writing classes. Sino-US English Teaching, 7(3), 10-22
• Rahimpour, M. (2011). Computer assisted language learning (CALL). International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 8(1), 3-9.
• Razagifard, P., & Razzaghifard, V. (2011).Corrective feedback in a computer-mediated communicative context and the development of second language grammar. Teaching English with Technology, 11(2), 1-17.
• Rezaee, A., & Ahmadzadeh, S. (2012). Integrating computer mediated with face-to-face communication and EFL learners’ vocabulary improvement. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(3), 346-352.
• Salomon, G., Kosminsky, E., & Asaf, M. (2003). Computers and writing. In Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (Eds.) Handbook of Children's Literacy (pp. 409-442). London: Kluwer.
• Sauro, S. (2009).Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96-120.
• Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System 37(4), 556-569.
• Soori, A., Kafipour, R., & Soury, M. (2011). Effectiveness of different types of direct corrective feedback on correct use of English articles among the Iranian EFL students. European Journal of Social Sciences, 26(4), 494-501.
• Sotilo, S. (2005). Corrective feedback via instant messenger learning activities in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS dyads. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 467-496.
• Srichanyachon, N. (2012). Teacher written feedback for L2 learners’ writing development. Silpakorn University Journal of Social Sciences, Humanities and Arts, 12(1), 7-17.
• Tarawneh, R. (2011). The reasons behind writing problems for Jordanian secondary students 2010-2011. Language in India, 11, 92-112.
• Touchie, H. (1986). Second language learning errors their types, causes, and treatment. JALT Journal, 8(1), 75-80.
• Vanderbeek, G. (2007). Improving the effectiveness of independent practice with corrective feedback. Retrieved from http://scimath.unl.edu/MIM/files/research/VanderbeekG.pdf
• Verhoef, R., & Tomic, W. (1996). Computer-aided acquisition of writing skill. Curriculum and Teaching, 11 (1), 3-21.
• Vyatkina, N. (2011). Writing instruction and policies for written corrective feedback in the basic language sequence. L2 Journal, 3, 63-92.