Mobile-Mediated Interactional Feedback (MMIF) effect on Iranian learners’ acquisition of English articles

• Authors: Thana Hmidani , Narges Zareian

Abstracts

EN

The role of interactional feedback (IF) has been the interest of researchers in communicational context. Some studies have shown low rate of improvement following IF in a classroom setting, hence a shift to computer-assisted feedback. This study explored IF in a mobile-mediated environment (MMIF) on Telegram and compared it with in-class IF. The aim was to solve the problem of students who were unable to attend classes regularly due to family or schoolwork conditions. Forty highschool and undergraduate students of low intermediate level were randomly assigned to two groups. The experimental group attended three sessions out of six: an introductory one for pre-test and the procedure; a halfway session for face-to-face discussions with the teacher; and one for post-test and assessment of the procedure. The control group attended six regular classes. The experimental group sent their compositions online to the teacher who highlighted the mistakes and posted them to be discussed by the learners who were further divided into subgroups of five for more opportunity to participate and by the teacher who provided more feedback when needed. Data were collected from the first and last compositions produced in-class by both groups and results were compared with a focus on article use. The mixed method study revealed that MMIF is advantageous and time-saving.

Keywords

EN

English articles; Interactional feedback; Iranian learners; mobile-mediation; self-repair

• Publisher: IATEFL Poland Computer Special Interest Group & University of Nicosia
• Journal: Teaching English with Technology
• Year: 2022
• Volume: 22
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 40-61

Dates

published

2022

Contributors

author

Thana Hmidani

• University of Kyrenia, Girne, TRNC

author

Narges Zareian

• Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

References

• Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060268
• Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2012). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyzing group dynamics and revision processes in wikis. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 431-448.
• Azari, M. H. (2017). Effect of weblog-based process approach on EFL learners' writing performance and autonomy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(6), 529-551.
• Bruton, A. (2009). Designing research into the effects of grammar correction in L2 writing: not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 136-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.005
• Burston, J. (2015). Twenty years of MALL project implementation: A meta-analysis of learning outcomes. ReCALL, 27(1), 4-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000159
• Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2018). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Dashtestani, R. (2016). Moving bravely towards mobile learning: Iranian students' use of mobile devices for learning English as a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 815-832. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1069360
• Dorney, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054
• Erlam, R., Ellis, R., & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41(2), 257-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.03.004
• 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(3), 353-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
• Faramarzi, S., Tabrizi, H. H., & Chalak, A. (2019). Telegram: An Instant Messaging application to assist distance language learning. Teaching English with Technology, 19(1), 132-147.
• Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Gedik, N., Hanci-Karademirci, A., Kursun, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2012). Key instructional design issues in a cellular phone-based mobile learning project. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1149-1159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.002
• Gromik, N. A. (2012). Cell phone video recording feature as a language learning tool: A case study. Computers & Education, 58(1), 223-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.013
• Haghighi, H., Jafarigohar, M., Khoshsima, H., & Vahdany, F. (2019). Impact of flipped classroom on EFL learners' appropriate use of refusal: achievement, participation, perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(3), 261-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1504083
• Huang, Y. M., Jeng, Y. L., & Huang, T. C. (2009). An educational mobile blogging system for supporting collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 163-175.
• Ibrahim, M. N. B., Norsaal, E. B., Abdullah, M. H. B., Soh, Z. H. B. C., & Othman, A. B. (2016). Teaching and Learning Enhancement Based on Telegram Social Media Tool. Jurnal Intelek, 11(1), 7-11.
• ITU. (2015). ITU releases 2015 ICT figures. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2015/17.aspx#.V643yJgrLIU
• Karimi, S. (1989). Aspects of Persian syntax, specificity, and the theory of grammar. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seattle: University of Washington.
• Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271-289. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000335
• Kukulska‐Hulme, A., & Viberg, O. (2018). Mobile collaborative language learning: State of the art. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 207-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12580
• Leech, N., Barrett, K., & Morgan, G. A. (2013). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation. New York: Routledge.
• Lin, C. J., Hwang, G. J., Fu, Q. K., & Chen, J. F. (2018). A flipped contextual game-based learning approach to enhancing EFL students’ English business writing performance and reflective behaviors. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 117-131. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26458512
• Liu, P. L., & Chen, C. J. (2015). Learning English through actions: A study of mobile-assisted language learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(2), 158-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.959976
• Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104263021
• Ma, Q. (2020). Examining the role of inter-group peer online feedback on wiki writing in an EAP context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 197-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1556703
• Maftoon, P., Yazdani Moghaddam, M., Gholebostan, H., & Beh-Afarin, S. R. (2010). Privatization of English education in Iran: A feasibility study. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 13(4), 1-12.
• Nassaji, H. (2011). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction. System, 39, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.01.016
• Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. London: Bloomsbury.
• Nassaji, H. (2016). Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20 (4), 535-562. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816644940
• Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135
• Ruegg, R. (2015). The relative effects of peer and teacher feedback on improvement in EFL students’ writing ability. Linguistics and Education, 29, 73-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.12.001
• Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334210
• Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611-633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12035.x
• Shale, D. (2002). The hybridisation of higher education in Canada. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 2(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v2i2.64
• Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
• Swain, M. (2010). Talking-it through: Languaging as a source of learning. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use/ learning (pp. 112-130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Talan, T. (2020). The effect of mobile learning on learning performance: A meta-analysis study. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 20(1), 79-103.
• Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online gaming. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 802-821. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00974.x
• Tsui, A. B., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9
• Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second-language classroom research. London: Longman.
• Vasquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 421-443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375365
• Vurdien, R. (2020). Enhancing writing skills via mobile learning and wikis. In B. Zou and M. Thomas (Eds.), Recent developments in technology-enhanced and computer-assisted language learning (pp. 99-121). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Yan, L. (2019). A study on WeChat-based collaborative learning in college English writing. English Language Teaching, 12(6), 1-9.
• Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
• Zou, B., Wang, D., & Xing, M. (2016). Collaborative tasks in Wiki-based environment in EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 1001-1018. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1121878

Identifiers

Biblioteka Nauki

2087205