Исследование влияния синхронной и асинхронной компьютерной обратной связи от одногруппников на развитие письменной речи кандидатов IELTS
https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.18.1.03
Аннотация
В настоящем исследовании изучалось влияние синхронной и асинхронной компьютерной обратной связи от одногруппников на развитие письменной речи кандидатов IELTS. При помощи случайной выборки были отобраны 132 студента из шести групп, проходящих обучение в английском языковом центре. Участники исследования были разделены на три равные группы: две экспериментальные, учащиеся которых получали синхронную и асинхронную компьютерную обратную связь, и одну контрольную. Данные были получены с помощью пробного теста на знание английского языка и шкалы синхронного и асинхронного оценивания письменного текста. Для статистического анализа данных использовались однофакторный дисперсионный анализ (ANOVA) и критерий хи-квадрат. Было выявлено, что обратная связь, полученная по компьютеру, оказалась эффективнее традиционной формы обратной связи в виде комментариев, сделанных на полях тетради. Участники асинхронной группы успешно справились с заданиями, чем студенты синхронной группы. Результаты также выявили, что чаще всего частники обеих экспериментальных группы использовали директивный вид обратной связи. Однако в частоте использования различных видов директивной обратной связи были расхождения. В синхронной группе студенты, как правило, использовали рекомендации и предложения, в асинхронной группе чаще использовалась обратная связь в виде инструкций. С учетом полученных результатов учителям рекомендуется использовать асинхронную обратную связь, чтобы повысить качество письменной речи учащихся.
Об авторах
Д. Б. Хассани
Исламский университет Азад
Иран
Иран
Джавад Бойер Хассани
Исфахан
А. Чалак
Исламский университет Азад
Иран
Иран
Азизех Чалак
Исфахан
Х. Х. Табризи
Исламский университет Азад
Иран
Иран
Хоссейн Хейдари Табризи
Исфахан
Список литературы
1. Abuseileek, A. F., & AbuAlsha’r, A. M. (2012). The effect of computer-mediated communication cooperative learning structures and techniques on improving EFL learners' speaking skill. International Journal of Learning Technology, 7(4), 334-352. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2012.052210
2. AbuSeileek, A., & Abualsha'r, A. (2014). Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners' writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 76-95.
3. Ahmadian, M., &Yadegari, H. R. (2009). The effects of extroversion/introversion on the use of strategic competence in written referential communication. IJAL, 12(1), 27-60.
4. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S., & Walker, D. (2018). Introduction to research in education. Cengage Learning.
5. Azizi, M., Pavlikova, M., & Masalimova, A. R. (2020). Exploring literature reading classes in terms of types of feedback provided by EFL teachers: Does teaching experience play a determining role. Education and Self Development, 15(3), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.26907/esd15.3.02
6. Bangs, P., & Cantos, P. (2004). What can computer assisted language learning contribute to foreign language pedagogy? International Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 221-239.
7. Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1‐English and L2‐ writing development: A meta‐Analysis. ETS Research Report Series, 2011(1), i-99. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2011.tb02241.x
8. Bitchener, J. (2017). A guide to supervising non-native English writers of theses and dissertations: Focusing on the writing process. Routledge.
9. Bitchner, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
10. Cambridge University Press (2011). Cambridge IELTS 8 with Answers. https://www.cambridge.org/gb/cambridgeenglish/catalog/cambridge-english-exams-ielts/ielts
11. Cha, Y. (2007). A study of peer feedback patterns in CMC modes on Korean EFL students. Multimedia Assisted Language Learning, 10(1), 9-35. https://doi.org/10.15702/mall.2007.10.1.9
12. Chang, C. F. (2009). Peer review through synchronous and asynchronous CMC modes: A case study in a Taiwanese college English writing course. The JALT CALL Journal, 5(1), 45-64. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v5n1.72
13. Chang, C. F. (2012). Peer review via three modes in an EFL writing course. Computers and Education, 29, 63-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2012.01.001
14. Cheng, G. (2019). Exploring the effects of automated tracking of student responses to teacher feedback in draſt revision: Evidence from an undergraduate EFL writing course. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1655769
15. DiGiovanni, E. & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face? ELT Journal, 55, 263-272. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.3.263
16. Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335-349. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990544
17. Farist, J. C. (2011). An analysis of teachers’ discourse and their perceptions concerning the use of questioning and feedback during reading instruction in third-grade classrooms [Unpublished PhD dissertation]. Kennesaw State University, USA.
18. Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. García, E. M., & Martínez, V. G. M. (2018). Students' reactions to teacher corrective feedback to oral production: A study on self-correction and autonomy in compulsory EFL university courses. MEXTESOL Journal, 42(1), 1-24.
20. Gaševic, D., Dawson, S., Rogers, T., & Gasevic, D. (2016). Learning analytics should not promote one size fits all: The effects of instructional conditions in predicting academic success. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.10.002
21. Ghadi, S. A., & Khodabakhshzadeh, H. (2016). The effect of employing electronic peer assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability and autonomy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(12), 2272-2279. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0612.06
22. González, E. F. (2010). Impact of teacher/student conferencing and teacher written feedback on EFL revision.MEXTESOL Journal, 34(1), 59-71.
23. Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002
24. Ho, M. C., & Savignon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269-290. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v24i2.269-290
25. Hoomanfard, M., & Rahimi, M. (2020). A comparative study of the efficacy of teacher and peer online written corrective feedback on EFL learners' writing ability. Zabanpazhuhi (Journal of Language Research), 11(33), 327-352.
26. Hoomanfard, M., & Rahimi, M. (2021). Effect of computer-mediated vs. face-to-face peer feedback on L2 introverted vs. extroverted learners’ writing ability and language-related episodes. Journal of Language Horizons, 5(2), 51-73. https://doi.org/10.22051/LGHOR.2020.32628.1353
27. Huisman, B., Saab, N., Van Driel, J., & Van Den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 955-968. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318
28. Huynh, M. H. (2008). The impact of online peer feedback on EFL learners’ motivation in writing and writing performance: A case study at Can Tho University [Unpublished MA thesis]. Can Tho University, Vietnam.
29. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
30. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 1-22). Cambridge University Press.
31. Jabbari, A. A., & Mohammadi, M. O., & Fazilatfar, A. M. (2017). Asynchronous online discussion forum: A key to enhancing students’ writing ability and attitudes in Iran. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 20(2), 35-79.
32. 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, Inc.
33. Jin, L., & Zhu, W. (2010). Dynamic motives in ESL computer-mediated peer response. Computers and Composition, 27, 284-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2010.09.001
34. Joh, J. (2019). Impact of peer feedback on learning: A case of EFL teacher trainees. Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(4), 1103. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.4.3.1103
35. Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., & Biemans, H. J. (2021). How does online peer feedback improve argumentative essay writing and learning? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(2), 195-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1687005
36. Leslie, C. (2010). Technology in language learning: Wikis and webquests. E-TEALS, 1, 52-64.
37. Lin, J. Y. (2005). Synchronous and asynchronous conferencing: A comparison of two modes of online ESL peer response and their effects on student talk and subsequent text revision. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(7), 25-48.
38. Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2018). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
39. Liu, J., & Sadler, R. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus conventional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0
40. McCarter, S., & Whitby, N. (2014). Improve your IELTS writing skills. Macmillan Publishers Limited.
41. McGroarty, M. E., & Zhu, W. (1997). Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision. Language Learning, 47(1), 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.11997001
42. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press.
43. Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of “triadic dialogue”? An investigation of teacher student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21, 376-406. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.376
44. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Heinle& Heinle.
45. Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135-196. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3502_3
46. Ogata, H., Feng, C., Hada, Y., & Yano, Y. (2000). Online markup-based language learning environment. Computers and Education: An International Journal, 34(1), 51–66.
47. Pham, H. T. P. (2020). Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: student feedback and revision in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1868530
48. Rahimi, M. (2015). The role of individual differences in L2 learners’ retention of written corrective feedback. Journal of Response to Writing, 1(1), 19-48.
49. Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge University Press.
50. Rosalina, C. (2010). EFL students as peer advisors in an online writing center [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. New York University, USA.
51. Shang, H. F. (2017). An exploration of asynchronous and synchronous feedback modes in EFL writing. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(3), 496-513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9154-0
52. Song, W., & Usaha, S. (2009). How EFL university students use electronic peer response into revisions. Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology, 16(3), 263-275.
53. Storch, N. (2017). Peer corrective feedback in computer-mediated collaborative writing. In H. Nassaji & P. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 82-95). Routledge.
54. Sung, K. (2021). EFL undergraduate and graduate learners’ views on a writing intensive online subject matter course. Journal of Asia TEFL, 18(2), 520-543. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2021.18.2.9.520
55. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400304
56. Underwood, J. H. (1984).Linguistics, computers, and the language learner. Newbury House.
57. Waluyo, B., & Rofiah, N. L. (2021). Developing students' English oral presentation skills: Do self confidence, teacher feedback, and English proficiency matter? MEXTESOL Journal, 45(3), n3.
58. Wang, S. (2009).Effects of electronic peer response in comparison with face-to-face peer response on Chinese EFL university students’ writing revision [Unpublished MA thesis]. Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand.
59. Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31(2), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800012970
60. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.
61. Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379-428. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1503_3
62. Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2021). The effects of providing and receiving peer feedback on writing performance and learning of secondary school students. American Educational Research Journal, 58(3), 492-526. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220945266
63. Yeh, S. W., & Lo, J. J. (2009). Using online annotations to support error correction and corrective feedback. Computers and Education, 52(4), 882–892. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.014
64. Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching, 49(4), 461–493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000161
Рецензия
Для цитирования:
Хассани Д.Б., Чалак А., Табризи Х.Х. Исследование влияния синхронной и асинхронной компьютерной обратной связи от одногруппников на развитие письменной речи кандидатов IELTS. Образование и саморазвитие. 2023;18(1):26-42. https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.18.1.03
For citation:
Hassani J.B., Chalak A., Tabrizi H.H. Investigating the Effect of Synchronous and Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Peer Feedback on IELTS Candidates’ Writing Development and Interactions. Education and Self-Development. 2023;18(1):26-42. https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.18.1.03
Просмотров:
4
Послать статью по эл. почте 