اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 335 |
| تعداد مقالات | 2,752 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 3,106,875 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,257,642 |
Comparative Effects of Direct and Metalinguistic Computer-Mediated Feedback on L2 Learners’ Writing Ability and Willingness-to-Write | ||
| Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies | ||
| دوره 9، شماره 4، دی 2022، صفحه 119-142 اصل مقاله (899.74 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jmrels.2022.17200.2064 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Mahmood Hashemian1؛ Maryam Farhang-Ju* 2 | ||
| 1Shahrekord University | ||
| 2Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 15 اردیبهشت 1401، تاریخ بازنگری: 19 خرداد 1401، تاریخ پذیرش: 30 خرداد 1401 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| The present study investigated the probable effects of asynchronous direct and metalinguistic computer-mediated corrective feedback (CMCF) on the writing ability (WA) and willingness-to-write (WTW) of upper-intermediate L2 learners. To this aim, a convenient sample of 90 upper-intermediate L2 learners volunteered to participate in this study. In the next stage, they were assigned into 3 intact groups. Intact experimental groups received asynchronous direct CMCF and metalinguistic CMCF on the different aspects of their writings, whereas the control group did not receive any CMCF. To check the (probable) impact of asynchronous direct and metalinguistic CMCF on the participants’ WA, the researchers assessed the participants’ WA before and after the treatment. Furthermore, participants filled out a previously developed and validated WTW questionnaire before and after the treatment, which measured their WTW. In the last stage, 16 participants of the experimental groups were interviewed to provide an in-depth understanding of factors affecting the participants’ WTW. ANOVA results revealed that the participants’ WA significantly improved due to both asynchronous direct and metalinguistic CMCF, with no significant difference between the efficacies of the CMCF types. Besides, the results indicated that both CMCF types resulted in an improvement in the participants’ WTW. Furthermore, the theme analysis of interview findings suggested that the participants perceived CMCF to be facilitative. The interview results were in agreement with those of the quantitative analyses. The findings of this study may contribute to understating L2 learners’ needs and considering pedagogical decision-making for course developers and instructors. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Computer-Mediated؛ Direct Feedback؛ Metalinguistic Feedback؛ Writing Ability (WA)؛ Willingness-to-Write (WTW) | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| تاثیرات مقایسه ای بازخوردهای رایانه-محور مستقیم و فرازبانی بر مهارت نوشتاری و تمایل به نوشتن زبان آموزان انگلیسی | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| محمود هاشمیان1؛ مریم فرهنگ جو2 | ||
| 1دانشگاه شهرکرد | ||
| 2دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| مطالعه حاضر تاثیر احتمالی بازخورد اصلاحی مستقیم و فرازبانی غیرهمزمان با واسطه کامپیوتری (CMCF) را بر توانایی نوشتن (WA) و تمایل به نوشتن (WTW) زبان آموزان سطح متوسط بررسی کرد. برای این منظور، یک نمونه مناسب متشکل از 90 زبان آموز سطح متوسط برای شرکت در این مطالعه داوطلب شدند. سسپس شرکت کنندگان به به 3 گروه مجزا تقسیم شدند. گروه های مجزا دست نخورده بازخورد اصلاحی مستقیم ناهمزمان و فرازبانی در جنبه های مختلف نوشته های خود دریافت کردند، در حالی که شرکت کنندگان گروه کنترل هیچ بازخورد اصلاحی دریافت نکردند. برای بررسی تأثیر (احتمالی) بازخورد اصلاحی مستقیم و فرازبانی ناهمزمان برتوانایی نوشتن شرکت‌کنندگان، یک پیش آزمون نوشتاری و یک پس آزمون نوشتاری از آن ها گرفته شد. علاوه بر این، آنها قبل و بعد از تیمار، پرسشنامه تمایل به نوشتن را که قبلاً طراحی و تأیید شده بود پر کردند تا تمایل به نوشتن ان ها ارزیابی شود. در مرحله آخر، 16 نفر از شرکت کنندگان گروه های آزمایشی مصاحبه شدند تا درک عکیق تری از عوامل موثر بر توانایی نوشتن و تمایل به نوشتن زبان آموزان فراهم شود. نتایج ANOVA نشان داد که توانایی نوشتن شرکت‌کنندگان در اثر بازخورد اصلاحی مستقیم و فرازبانی ناهمزمان به طور قابل‌توجهی بهبود یافته است، اگرچه تفاوت معنی‌داری بین اثرات این دو نوع بازخورد وجود نداشت. علاوه بر این، نتایج نشان داد که هر دو نوع بازخورد اصلاحی منجر به بهبود تمایل به نوشتن شرکت‌کنندگان شد. به عقیده زبان اموزان بازخورد اصلاحب نقش تسهیل کننده در فرایند یادگیری انها داشته است. علاوه بر این، یافته‌های مصاحبه با تحلیل‌های کمی همخوانی داشت. یافته ها به درک نیازهای زبان آموزان L2 و در نظر گرفتن تصمیم گیری آموزشی برای توسعه دهندگان دوره اموزشی و مدرسان زبان انگلیسی کمک می کند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| رایانه-محور, بازخورد مستقیم, بازخوردهای فرازبانی, توانایی نوشتاری, تمایل به نوشتن | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Al-abais. S. T. (2017). The role of cooperative learning in Iraqi secondary school EFL learners’ willingness to write and their writing achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written WCF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348-363.
Bitchener, J. (2018). A guide to supervising non-native English writers of theses and dissertations. Routledge
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written WCF for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written WCF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
Busse, V. (2013). An exploration of motivation and self-beliefs of first year students of German. System, 41(2), 379-398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.03.007.
Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. John Benjamins.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A Web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409-426. doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004
Duijnhouwer, H., Prins, F. J., & Stokking, K. M. (2012). Feedback providing improvement strategies and reflection on feedback use: Effects on students’ writing motivation, process, and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 171-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.003
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written WCF types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ellis, R. (2013). Corrective Feedback in Teacher Guides and SLA. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 1-18.
Ellis, N. (2016). Salience, cognition, language complexity, and complex adaptive systems. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 341-351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S027226311600005X
Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jslw.2018.05.005
Esmaeeli, M., & Sadeghi, K. (2020). The effect of direct versus indirect focused written corrective feedback on developing EFL learners’ written and oral skills. Language Related Research, 11(5), 124-89. http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.23223081.1399.11.5.14.1
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written WCF for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009
Finn, B., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2011). Enhancing retention through reconsolidation: Negative emotional arousal following retrieval enhances later memory. Psychological Science, 22(6), 781-786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611407932
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Blackwell.
Goldstein, L. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language writing classrooms. The University of Michigan Press.
Hashemian, M., & Farhang-Ju, M. (2018). Effects of metalinguistic feedback on grammatical accuracy of Iranian field (in)dependent L2 learners’ writing ability. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 141-161. https://dx.doi.org/10.22055/rals.2018.13797
Harmey, S. J. (2020). Coconstructing writing: handing over the reins to young authors. Education, 3(13), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1732438
Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written communication, 29(3), 369-388. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741088312451260
Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Newbury House Publishers.
Kaivanpanah, S., Ghonsooly, B., & Salari Beynabaj, N. (2019). Willingness to write in EFL Contexts. Applied Research on English Language, 8(3), 339-364. http://dx.doi.org/10.22108/are.2019.114160.1387
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written WCF in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta‐analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28-52. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519-539. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362168818802469
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140-149. https://doi.org/10.2307/326382
Lee, I., Yu, S., & Liu, Y. (2018). Hong Kong secondary students’ motivation in EFL writing: A survey study. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 176-187. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.364
Lee, J. L. C. (2009). Reconsolidation: Maintaining memory relevance. Trends in Neurosciences, 32(8), 413-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2009.05.002.
Lee, L. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tesq.456.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37-63. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000020
Rafiee, M., & Abbasian-Naghneh, S. (2020). Willingness to write (WTW): Development of a model in EFL writing classrooms. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1847710
Roediger, H. L., III, & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003
Saadat, M., Mehrpour, S., & Khajavi, Y. (2016). Internet‐mediated WCF for digital natives. TESOL Journal, 7(1), 233-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tesj.232
Saeli, H. (2019). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences of grammar-centered written WCF in Iran. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 7(1), 46-70. https://dx.doi.org/10.30486/relp.2019.663422
Sarre, C., Grosbois, M., & Brudermann, C. (2019). Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: impact of different types of WCF in an experimental blended learning EFL course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(5-6), 707-729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1635164
Sherafati, N., & Mahmoudi Largani, F. (2022). The potentiality of computer-based feedback in fostering EFL learners’ writing performance, self-regulation ability, and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Computers in Education, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00221-3
Sherafati, N., Mahmoudi Largani, F., & Shahrzad Amini, S. (2020). Exploring the effect of computer-mediated teacher feedback on the writing achievement of Iranian L2 learners: Does motivation count? Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4591-4613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10177-5
Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct WCF on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 517-538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.993400
Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written WCF on grammatical accuracy in a computer‐mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296-319. doi:10.1111/modl.12317
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written WCF and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286-306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.017
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford University Press.
Tan, S., Cho, Y. W., & Xu, W. (2022). Exploring the effects of automated written corrective feedback, computer-mediated peer feedback and their combination mode on EFL learner’s writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2066137
Tang, C., & Liu, Y. T. (2018). Effects of indirect coded corrective feedback with and without short affective teacher comments on L2 writing performance, learner uptake and motivation. Assessing Writing, 35, 26-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.12.002
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of WCF on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. P. (2008). WCF, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
Yamashita, T. (2022). Effectiveness and inclusiveness of locally adapted human-delivered synchronous written corrective feedback for English referential articles. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-34. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2022.2068612 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 159 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 259 |
||