آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 23 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 368 |
| تعداد مقالات | 2,890 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 2,566,188 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 1,821,854 |
A Mixed Methods Study of the Impact of Online Teacher Mediation and Learner Scaffolding Via Google Docs on EFL Learners’ Writing Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency | ||
| Technology Assisted Language Education | ||
| دوره 2، شماره 3، آذر 2024، صفحه 1-24 اصل مقاله (458.57 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22126/tale.2024.10829.1050 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Leila Behrahi1؛ Hamid Reza Khalaji* 2؛ Payman Rajabi3 | ||
| 1Department of English, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran. | ||
| 2Department of English Language, Islamic Azad University, Malayer Branch, Malayer, Iran | ||
| 3English Department, Islamic Azad University Malayer Branch, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| It has been suggested that scaffolding can be an effective way to support learners in writing. Research has also indicated that teacher feedback is essential in improving the quality of FL writing. Accordingly, the present quasi-experimental study aimed to explore the differential effects of teacher mediation and learner scaffolding on EFL learners’ writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency in the Google Docs environment. A convenience sample of 97 EFL learners participated, with proficiency levels determined using the DIALANG test. The participants were assigned to two experimental and one control group. The data were collected from a timed writing task employed as the pre and post-test to measure the writing achievement of the EFL participants using Fathi and Rahimi’s (2022) list of measures and a semi-structured interview. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed, including comparing the means of pre and post-tests of the three groups in terms of the three writing indicators by MANCOVA and Pearson correlation analysis. As the results revealed, the progress of writing indicators has become statistically significant only in the second experimental group. In contrast, the first experimental group showed progress that was not statistically significant. Furthermore, a significant positive relationship was found between complexity components, accuracy, and fluency, and accuracy exhibited the most significant enhancement. In addition, the analysis of the interview revealed learners’ perceived value of scaffolding strategies, especially by peers, and a positive attitude towards the implications of Google Docs in their success in writing performance. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| accuracy؛ complexity؛ fluency؛ Google Docs learner scaffolding؛ teacher mediation | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Aghazadeh, Z., & Soleimani, M. (2020). The effect of e-portfolio on EFL learners’ writing accuracy, fluency, and complexity. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 20(2), 182-199.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S., & Walker, D. (2019). Introduction to research education. Cengage learning.
Brown, D., Liu, Q., & Norouzian, R. (2023). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback in developing L2 accuracy: A Bayesian meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 13621688221147374.
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalizing L2 complexity. Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA, 32, 21.
Casal, J. E., & Lee, J. J. (2019). Syntactic complexity and writing quality in assessed first-year L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 51-62.
Creswell, J. (2011). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th, Kindle ed.). In: Boston, MA: Pearson HE.
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 2750.
Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2017). Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using Google Docs on EFL Learners’ Academic Writing Skills: A Mixed Methods Study. Computer Assisted Language Learning 30(8), 787–815.
Ebrahimi, Z., & Sadighi, F. (2022). Comparing the Effect of Online Teacher-Scaffolding vs. Peer-Scaffolding on Iranian EFL Learners’ Grammatical Achievement. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 11(1), 97-120.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analysing learner language. (No Title).
Fathi, J., Arabani, A. S., & Mohamadi, P. (2021). The Effect of Collaborative Writing Using Google Docs on EFL Learners’ Writing Performance and Writing Self-regulation. Language Related Research, 12(5).
Fathi, J., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Examining the impact of the flipped classroom on writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency: A case of EFL students. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(7), 1668-1706.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2023). Teaching L2 composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Routledge.
Fulwiler, T. (2002). College writing: A personal approach to academic writing. ERIC.
Genç-Ersoy, B., & Göl-Dede, D. (2022). Developing Writing Skills, Writing Attitudes and Motivation through Educational Games: Action Research. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 9(3), 569-589.
Gholami Pasand, P., & Tahriri, A. (2017). Peer scaffolding in an EFL writing classroom: An investigation of writing accuracy and scaffolding behaviors. Research in English language pedagogy, 5(2), 147-166.
Harmer, J. (2006). How to teach writing. Pearson Education India.
Hassen, S. K., Adugna, E. T., & Bogale, Y. N. (2023). EFFECTS OF SCAFFOLDING STRATEGIES INSTRUCTION ON EFL STUDENTS’WRITING ACHIEVEMENT AND PERCEPTIONS.
Hemati, Z., & Farahian, M. (2024). Fostering EFL Learners’ Classroom Engagement: Does Collaborative Writing through Google Docs Make a Difference? Technology Assisted Language Education, 2(1), 1-20.
Hidayat, F. (2020). Exploring students’ view of using Google Docs in writing class. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 4(2), 184–194.
Hillis, A. E., Kane, A., Tuffiash, E., Beauchamp, N. J., Barker, P. B., Jacobs, M. A., & Wityk, R. J. (2002). Neural substrates of the cognitive processes underlying spelling: Evidence from MR diffusion and perfusion imaging. Aphasiology, 16(4-6), 425-438.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied linguistics, 30(4), 461-473.
Ismail, N., Hussin, S., & Darus, S. (2012). ESL Tertiary Students’ Writing Problems and Needs: Suggested Elements for an Additional Online Writing Program (IQ-Write) for the BEL 311 Course. International Journal of Learning, 18(9).
Kartepe, B. N., & Atmaca, Ç. (2024). The Effects of Using Google Docs on Writing Skills of Turkish EFL Learners. Journal of Language Education and Research, 10(1), 147-165.
Khojasteh, L., Hosseini, S. A., & Nasiri, E. (2021). The impact of mediated learning on the academic writing performance of medical students in flipped and traditional classrooms: scaffolding techniques. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 16, 1-20.
Langan, J. (2001). College writing skills with readings. New York.
Lv, X., Ren, W., & Xie, Y. (2021). The effects of online feedback on ESL/EFL writing: A meta-analysis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30(6), 643–653.
Moon, J. A. (2013). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice.
Mustaque, S. (2014). Writing Problems among the Tertiary Level Students in Bangladesh: A Study in Chittagong Region. Language in India, 14(1).
Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. Tesl-ej, 6(2), 1–20.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology (Vol. 192). New York: Prentice Hall.
Piamsai, C. (2020). The effect of scaffolding on non-proficient EFL learners’ performance in an academic writing class. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 13(2), 288–305.
Polio, C., & Fleck, C. (1998). “If I only had more time:” ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68.
Rastgou, A., Storch, N., & Knoch, U. (2020). The effect of sustained teacher feedback on CAF, content, and organization in EFL writing. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(2), 41-61.
Segalowitz, N. S., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(3), 369-385.
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism, 9(2), 159.
Wang, Z., & Han, F. (2022). The effects of teacher and automated feedback on cognitive and psychological aspects of foreign language writing: A mixed-methods research—frontiers in Psychology, 13, 909802.
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language teaching, 31(2), 57-71.
Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 157-180.
Wolfe-Quintero, K. E., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. (No Title). | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 102 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 169 |
||