The Effects of E-Feedback (Electronic Feedback) on Developing EFL Students` Writing Competence: A Case Study on Tishk International University Students in Erbil, Iraq
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v10i1p320Keywords:
Electronic Feedback, Written Corrective Feedback, Academic WritingAbstract
Academic Writing course has been considered as indispensable in tertiary education for its numerous implications in real, social and professional life. Accordingly, several strategies have been postulated to master writing. Apart from writing strategies, the conduct of written corrective feedback matters which can be traditional, electronic or hybrid. In this respect, this study was conducted to measure the effects of electronic written corrective feedback at TISHK International University on Language Preparatory School students in Erbil, Iraq. 50 students were chosen by employing a purposive sampling method. The study lasted for 10 weeks in 2021-2022 Academic Year. Both groups received the feedback traditionally in the first submission. However, experimental group received e-feedback, whereas control group received paper-based feedback in the second submission. Based on the collected data via writing exams, interview and questionnaire, it was figured out that experimental group students who received a traditional and electronic feedback instruction equally outperformed in terms of writing scores, motivation and submission rates. The findings of this study can have some implications for the stakeholders who are responsible for running Academic Writing courses in different countries.
References
Abubakr, A. S., & Kara, S. (2022). The effects of metalinguistic written corrective feedback (WCF) on language preparatory school students TOEFL independent writing section score. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 9(3).
Almendingen, K., Morseth, M. S., Gjølstad, E., Brevik, A., & Tørris, C. (2021). Student’s experiences with online teaching following COVID-19 lockdown: A mixed methods explorative study. PLOS one, 16(8), e0250378.
Bakla, A. (2020). A mixed-methods study of feedback modes in EFL writing. Language Learning & Technology, 24(1), 107–128. https://doi.org/10125/44712
Barrot, J. S. (2021). Effects of Facebook-based e-portfolio on ESL learners’ writing performance. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34(1), 95-111.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.
Boyd, P. W. (2008). Analyzing students’ perceptions of their learning in online and hybrid first-year composition courses. Computers and Composition, 25(2), 224-243.
Cédric Sarré, Muriel Grosbois & Cédric Brudermann (2019): Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course, Computer Assisted Language Learning, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1635164
Celik, B., Bilgin, R., & Yildiz, Y. (2022). The views of instructors in foreign language teaching with distance education model during the Covid 19 pandemic process: A study at Tishk International University in Erbil, Iraq. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 9(1), 148-176.
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.
Crosthwaite, P., Ningrum, S., & Lee, I. (2022). Research trends in L2 written corrective feedback: A bibliometric analysis of three decades of Scopus-indexed research on L2 WCF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 58, 100934.
Daskan, A., & Yildiz, Y. (2020a). Blended learning: A potential approach to promote learning outcomes. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 7(4), 103-108.
Daskan, A., & Yildiz, Y. (2020b). A simultaneous dual focus on form and meaning to enhance language learning. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 7(4), 59-63.
DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Ekanayaka, W. I., & Ellis, R. (2021). Which is the most effective technique for inducing learners’ attention to written corrective feedback (WCF): revision or discussion? Approximate replication of Ekanayaka and Ellis (2020). Available at SSRN 3809061.
Elboshi, A. (2021). Web-Enhanced Peer Feedback in ESL Writing Classrooms a Literature Review. English Language Teaching, 14(4), 66-76.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical And Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.
Fathi, J., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Examining the impact of flipped classroom on writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency: a case of EFL students. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(7), 1668-1706.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329.
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6pt2), 2134-2156.
Gad, E. E., Li, Y., Kliewer, J., Langberg, M., Jiang, A. A., & Bruck, J. (2016). Asymmetric error correction and flash-memory rewriting using polar codes. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 62(7), 4024–4038.
Guo, Q., Feng, R., & Hua, Y. (2021). How effectively can EFL students use automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) in research writing? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-20.
Kara, S., & Abdulrahman, S. A. (2022). The Effects of Product Approach on Language Preparatory School StudentsWriting Score in an Academic Writing Course. Canadian Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 2(4), 45-65.
Kara, S., & Abdulrahman, S. A. (2022). The Effects of Direct Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) on Language Preparatory School StudentsIELTS Independent Writing Section Score. Canadian Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 2(4), 66-88.
Linh, Đ. M. (2018). The effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and students of a public university in Vietnam. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(4), 152-162.
Loncar, M., Schams, W., & Liang, J. S. (2021). Multiple technologies, multiple sources: Trends and analyses of the literature on technology-mediated feedback for L2 English writing published from 2015-2019. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-63.
Mao, S. S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback:(Mis) alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 46-60.
Milligan, A. T., & Buckenmeyer, J. A. (2008). Assessing students for online learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 449-461.
Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of online writing: Simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learning setting. System, 38(2), 185-199.
Montgomery, J., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 82-99.
Rezaei, A., Izadpanah, S. & Shahnavaz, A. (2017). The Effects of Corrective Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 5(4). 107-117
Rosyada, A., & Sundari, H. (2021). Learning from home environment: Academic writing course for EFL undergraduates through Google Classroom application. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(2), 710-725.
Sartika, W. S. (2021). The Google Classroom for Learning Writing: Students’ Initial Perceptions. Journal of English Teaching, Literature, and Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 59-66.
Sauro, S. (2021). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. UMBC Education Department Collection.
Shang, H. F. (2022). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 4-16.
Statista “Most spoken languages in the world.” Statista. Retrieved April 18, 2022, (2022, April 1). https://statista.com/statistics/266808/the-most-spoken-languages-worldwide/
Tosun, M., & Yildiz, Y. (2015). The role of moral values and systematic informing in aim-based education. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 2(2).
Warnock, S. (2009). Teaching writing online: How and why. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Wirantaka, A. (2022) Effective Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Students’ Academic Writing. Eralingua: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Asing dan Sastra, 6(2), 387-399.
Yildiz, Y., & Yucedal, H. M. (2020). Learner autonomy: A central theme in language learning. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 7(3), 208-212.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies
International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies applies the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic Licence (CC BY-NC 2.0)
