Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Year 2022, Volume: 8 Issue: 22, 91 - 106, 07.05.2022

Abdullah Mohammed Khamis Al Maqbali Mohaida Mohin

Abstract

References

  • Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writing. Dordrecht, Netherlands; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Al-Bakri, S. (2015) Written corrective feedback: Teachers’ beliefs, practices and challenges in an Omani context. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 1, No. 1, September, 2015, 44-73.
  • Alm, A. (2006). CALL for autonomy, competence and relatedness: Motivating language learning environments in Web 2.0. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(3), 29-38.
  • Almasri, A.K., (2014). The influence on mobile learning based on technology acceptance model (Tam), mobile readiness (Mr) and perceived interaction (Pi) for higher education students. International Journal of Technical Research and Applications, 2(1), 5-11.
  • Al-Mufarrji, U. (2018). The Impact of Blogging among SQU Students. Oman Journal of ELT - Vol. 3, April 2018.
  • Al-Saleh, N. A. (2018). The Impact of Positive and Corrective Feedback via Showbie on Saudi Students' English Writing. Al Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University, College of Languages and Translation, Department of English Language and Literature, KSA (Master Thesis). Retrieved from Arab World English Journal (ID Number: 2215. December, 2018, 1-121. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/th.215.
  • Bazeley, P. (2009). Mixed methods data analysis. In S. Andrew & E. Halcomb (Eds.), Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences (pp. 84-118). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005b). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205.
  • Blake, R. (2013). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. Georgetown, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  • Bultron, A. (2014). The use of teacher-written feedback and computer-mediated feedback to enhance Puerto Rican English as a second language (ESL) high school students' essay writing (Order No. 3631241).
  • (A published doctoral dissertation) Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1564756071). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1564756071?accountid=142908.
  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed method methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97- 107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023.
  • Fageeh, A. (2011). EFL students' readiness for e-learning: Factors influencing e-learners' acceptance of the Blackboard in a Saudi university. The JALT CALL Journal, 7 (1), 19-42.
  • Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(02), 181-201.
  • Foote, C. (2017). School libraries, librarians, and project-based learning. Internet@Schools, 24(1), 12-13. Retrieved from
  • Hand, B. (2004). Cognitive, Constructivist Mechanisms for Learning Science through Writing. In C. S. Wallace, B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom (pp. 150). Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Haverkamp, B. E. (2005). Ethical perspectives on qualitative research in applied psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 146–155 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.146. Hubbard, P. (Ed.). (2009). Computer assisted language learning. London: Routledge.
  • Khalid, M. S., Jurisic, O., Kristensen, H. S., & Ørngreen, R. (2014). Exploring the use of iPads in danish schools. Paper presented at the 264-272.
  • Kim, V. (2018). Technology-enhanced feedback on student writing in the English-medium instruction classroom. English Teaching, Vol. 73, No. 4, Winter 2018.
  • Knight, C. (2017). Corey Knight's Showbie App Review - Showbie. Showbie. Retrieved 6 November 2017, from https://www.showbie.com/corey-knight-showbie-app-review/.Retrieved from https://search-proquest com.sdl.idm.oclc.org/docview/1680486023?accountid=142908.
  • Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191–204.
  • Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., Mavrou, K., & Paparistodemou, E. (2015). Integrating touch-enabled and mobile devices into contemporary mathematics education. Hershey PA: Information Science Reference, an imprint of IGI Global.
  • Nanayakkara, C. (2007). A Model of User Acceptance of Learning Management Systems. The International Journal of Learning: Annual Review, 12(12), 223-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/cgp/v13i12/45146.
  • Pytash, K. E., Ferdig, R. E., & Rasinski, T. V. (2013). Preparing teachers to teach writing using technology. Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.
  • Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-284.
  • Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Stockwell, G. (2012). Diversity in research and practice. In G. Stockwell (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning: Diversity in research & practice (pp. 147-163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Stockwell, G., & Hubbard, P. (2013). Some emerging principles for mobile-assisted language learning. Monterey, CA: The International Research Foundation for English Language Education. Retrieved from http://www.tirfonline.org/english-in-the-workforce/mobile-assisted-language-learning.
  • Sutton, L. A. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 223–242.
  • Trablsi, S. (2018) An Investigation of Written Corrective Feedback in an EFL Context: Beliefs of the Teachers their Real Practice and their Students’ Preferences and Perception as Sohar University. Advances in Language and Literary Studies. ISSN: 2203-4714.
  • Tuckman, B.W. (1999). Conducting educational research (fifth edition). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
  • Tuffley, D., & Antonio, A. (2015). Enhancing Educational Opportunities with Computer-Mediated Assessment Feedback. Future Internet, 7(3), 294-306. Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wakefield, S. (2013). Meeting the educational needs of the iGeneration. International School, 16, 49-49,51. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.sdl.idm.oclc.org/docview/1444950652?accountid=142908
  • Williams (2005) Williams, B. T. (2005). Leading double lives: Literacy and technology in and out of school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(8), 702-706.
  • Yunus, M. M., Salehi, H., & Chenzi, C. (2012). Integrating social networking tools into ESL writing classroom: Strengths and weaknesses. English Language Teaching, 5(8), 42.
  • Zhao, Y., & Zhu, Q., (2010), Influence factors of technology acceptance model in mobile learning. Fourth International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computing (ICGEC), 542-545.

TECHNOLOGY-MEDIATED WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK: EFL TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND THIER PRACTICES

Year 2022, Volume: 8 Issue: 22, 91 - 106, 07.05.2022

Abdullah Mohammed Khamis Al Maqbali Mohaida Mohin

Abstract

The objectives of this research are divided into two parts, 1) to explore the beliefs of the Sohar University
General Foundation English teachers of EFL writing regarding TMWCF and 2) To explore how the teachers
practice TMWCF in the writing classroom. Seven writing teachers took part in this study. TMWCF beliefs and
self-reported practices were investigated using semi-structured interviews with instructors. The findings of
the study revealed that: teachers' attitudes and behaviours were both consistent and inconsistent. Teachers'
ideas about error detection and repair matched with what they did. However, the teachers' attitudes on
redrafting, feedback explicitness, feedback volume, feedback source, and feedback emphasis did not match
their behaviours.

Keywords

Technology Corrective Feedback Acceptance Model

References

  • Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writing. Dordrecht, Netherlands; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Al-Bakri, S. (2015) Written corrective feedback: Teachers’ beliefs, practices and challenges in an Omani context. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 1, No. 1, September, 2015, 44-73.
  • Alm, A. (2006). CALL for autonomy, competence and relatedness: Motivating language learning environments in Web 2.0. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(3), 29-38.
  • Almasri, A.K., (2014). The influence on mobile learning based on technology acceptance model (Tam), mobile readiness (Mr) and perceived interaction (Pi) for higher education students. International Journal of Technical Research and Applications, 2(1), 5-11.
  • Al-Mufarrji, U. (2018). The Impact of Blogging among SQU Students. Oman Journal of ELT - Vol. 3, April 2018.
  • Al-Saleh, N. A. (2018). The Impact of Positive and Corrective Feedback via Showbie on Saudi Students' English Writing. Al Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University, College of Languages and Translation, Department of English Language and Literature, KSA (Master Thesis). Retrieved from Arab World English Journal (ID Number: 2215. December, 2018, 1-121. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/th.215.
  • Bazeley, P. (2009). Mixed methods data analysis. In S. Andrew & E. Halcomb (Eds.), Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences (pp. 84-118). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005b). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205.
  • Blake, R. (2013). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. Georgetown, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  • Bultron, A. (2014). The use of teacher-written feedback and computer-mediated feedback to enhance Puerto Rican English as a second language (ESL) high school students' essay writing (Order No. 3631241).
  • (A published doctoral dissertation) Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1564756071). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1564756071?accountid=142908.
  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed method methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97- 107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023.
  • Fageeh, A. (2011). EFL students' readiness for e-learning: Factors influencing e-learners' acceptance of the Blackboard in a Saudi university. The JALT CALL Journal, 7 (1), 19-42.
  • Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(02), 181-201.
  • Foote, C. (2017). School libraries, librarians, and project-based learning. Internet@Schools, 24(1), 12-13. Retrieved from
  • Hand, B. (2004). Cognitive, Constructivist Mechanisms for Learning Science through Writing. In C. S. Wallace, B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom (pp. 150). Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Haverkamp, B. E. (2005). Ethical perspectives on qualitative research in applied psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 146–155 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.146. Hubbard, P. (Ed.). (2009). Computer assisted language learning. London: Routledge.
  • Khalid, M. S., Jurisic, O., Kristensen, H. S., & Ørngreen, R. (2014). Exploring the use of iPads in danish schools. Paper presented at the 264-272.
  • Kim, V. (2018). Technology-enhanced feedback on student writing in the English-medium instruction classroom. English Teaching, Vol. 73, No. 4, Winter 2018.
  • Knight, C. (2017). Corey Knight's Showbie App Review - Showbie. Showbie. Retrieved 6 November 2017, from https://www.showbie.com/corey-knight-showbie-app-review/.Retrieved from https://search-proquest com.sdl.idm.oclc.org/docview/1680486023?accountid=142908.
  • Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191–204.
  • Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., Mavrou, K., & Paparistodemou, E. (2015). Integrating touch-enabled and mobile devices into contemporary mathematics education. Hershey PA: Information Science Reference, an imprint of IGI Global.
  • Nanayakkara, C. (2007). A Model of User Acceptance of Learning Management Systems. The International Journal of Learning: Annual Review, 12(12), 223-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/cgp/v13i12/45146.
  • Pytash, K. E., Ferdig, R. E., & Rasinski, T. V. (2013). Preparing teachers to teach writing using technology. Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.
  • Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-284.
  • Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Stockwell, G. (2012). Diversity in research and practice. In G. Stockwell (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning: Diversity in research & practice (pp. 147-163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Stockwell, G., & Hubbard, P. (2013). Some emerging principles for mobile-assisted language learning. Monterey, CA: The International Research Foundation for English Language Education. Retrieved from http://www.tirfonline.org/english-in-the-workforce/mobile-assisted-language-learning.
  • Sutton, L. A. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 223–242.
  • Trablsi, S. (2018) An Investigation of Written Corrective Feedback in an EFL Context: Beliefs of the Teachers their Real Practice and their Students’ Preferences and Perception as Sohar University. Advances in Language and Literary Studies. ISSN: 2203-4714.
  • Tuckman, B.W. (1999). Conducting educational research (fifth edition). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
  • Tuffley, D., & Antonio, A. (2015). Enhancing Educational Opportunities with Computer-Mediated Assessment Feedback. Future Internet, 7(3), 294-306. Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wakefield, S. (2013). Meeting the educational needs of the iGeneration. International School, 16, 49-49,51. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.sdl.idm.oclc.org/docview/1444950652?accountid=142908
  • Williams (2005) Williams, B. T. (2005). Leading double lives: Literacy and technology in and out of school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(8), 702-706.
  • Yunus, M. M., Salehi, H., & Chenzi, C. (2012). Integrating social networking tools into ESL writing classroom: Strengths and weaknesses. English Language Teaching, 5(8), 42.
  • Zhao, Y., & Zhu, Q., (2010), Influence factors of technology acceptance model in mobile learning. Fourth International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computing (ICGEC), 542-545.
There are 37 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Abdullah Mohammed Khamis Al Maqbali

Mohaida Mohin

Publication Date May 7, 2022
Submission Date March 8, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022Volume: 8 Issue: 22

Cite

EndNote Al Maqbali AMK, Mohin M (May 1, 2022) TECHNOLOGY-MEDIATED WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK: EFL TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND THIER PRACTICES. IJASOS- International E-journal of Advances in Social Sciences 8 22 91–106.
 Download Cover Image

Contact: ijasosjournal@hotmail.com

17922

The IJASOS Journal's site and its metadata are licensed under CC BY

Published and Sponsored by OCERINT International © 2015- 2024