Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the effect of computer-mediated teacher feedback on the writing achievement of Iranian EFL learners: Does motivation count?

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of a computer as a means and/or a source of feedback provision has facilitated the process of teaching and learning writing. The integration of computers into writing classes enabled teachers to provide timely and reliable feedback. Taking into account these opportunities that computers bring to the classroom, the present study attempted to investigate the efficacy of using computer-mediated teacher feedback and computer-generated feedback on learners’ writing skill. In addition, learners’ motivational level was explored. To do so, 60 intermediate EFL learners were selected from two intact classes and were randomly assigned to treatment groups. The results of paired samples t-test and independent samples t-test revealed a significant improvement in writing ability of the two groups from pretest to posttest. Only computer-mediated feedback significantly improved learners’ writing ability from posttest to delayed posttest. In addition, no significant difference was observed between the posttest scores of the two groups, while there was a significant difference between the delayed posttest score of the two groups. The result of interview indicated learners’ motivation in using computer-mediated feedback while there was disagreement in the other group concerning the motivation to use this approach. The study concluded that computers are a good medium for feedback provision. Furthermore, learners do not appreciate the role of computers as the source; rather, they accept it as a supplement to teacher feedback.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AbuSeileek, A. F. (2013). Using track changes and word processor to provide corrective feedback to learners in writing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(4), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al Khateeb, A. (2013). Wikis in EFL writing classes in Saudi Arabia: Identifying instructors’ reflections on merits, demerits, and implementation. Teaching English with Technology, 13(4), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (1991). Computer-based instruction: Methods and development (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amiri, E. (2012). A study of the application of digital technologies in teaching and learning English language and literature. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 1(5), 103–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Walker, D. A. (2013). Introduction to research in education (9th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.

  • Ayres, R. (2002). Learner attitudes towards the use of CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(3), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1076/call.15.3.241.8189.

  • Babaee, M. (2012). E-portfolio and social media for facilitating language learning. Journal of Language, Culture and Society, 16(36), 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baytak, A., Tarman, B., & Ayas, C. (2017). Experiencing technology integration in education: children’s perceptions. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2, 139–151 Retrieved November 23, 2019 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1052441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, K. (2003). Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

  • Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924.

  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, C., Santos, J., Conboy, J., & Martins, D. (2014). Teachers’ feedback: Exploring differences in students’ perceptions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 159, 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ChanLin, L. J. (2009). Applying motivational analysis in a web-based course. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290802646123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X. H. (1997). Novel synchronous CDMA multiuser detection scheme: orthogonal decision-feedback detection and its performance study. IEE Proceedings-Communications, 144(4), 275–280.

  • Chen, Y. H. (2005). Computer mediated communication: The use of CMC to develop EFL learners’ communicative competence. Asian EFL Journal, 7(1), 167–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. F. E., & Cheng, W. Y. E. (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 94–112 Retrieved November 19, 2019 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num2/chencheng.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, G. (2017). The impact of online automated feedback on students' reflective journal writing in an EFL course. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, K. J. (2019). Student perceptions and use of technology-mediated text and screencast feedback in ESL writing. Computers and Composition, 52, 222–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2019.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9(3), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.9.3.256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinnen, J. L., & Collopy, R. M. (2009). An analysis of feedback given to strong and weak student writers. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 49(3). Retrieved November 6, 2019 from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol49/iss3/5

  • Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ducate, L., & Arnold, D. (2012). Computer-mediated feedback: Effectiveness and students’ perceptions of screen-casting software vs. the comment function. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across writing contexts and tasks (pp. 31–56). San Marcos: CALICO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054.

  • Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Seoud, M. S. A., Ghenghesh, P., Seddiek, N., Nosseir, A., Taj-Eddin, I. A. T. F., & El-Khouly, M. M. (2013). E-learning and motivation effects on Egyptian higher education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9(4), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v9i4.3465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. System, 46, 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghazi, S., & Zamanian, M. (2016). The effect of asynchronous versus computer-mediated corrective feedback on the correct use of English articles in an EFL context. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 5(2), 169–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, W. (2013, July 12). Urban planet mobile to release its ground-breaking web-based English writing assessment tool for English as second language students. Retrieved from https://assessment-tool-for-english-as-second-language-students-162203395.html

  • Han, S., & Shin, J. A. (2017). Teaching Google search techniques in an L2 academic writing context. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 172–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, M., & Philips, M. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment: Scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1878.

  • Hsieh, Y. C. (2017). A case study of the dynamics of scaffolding among ESL learners and online resources in collaborative learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1–2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1273245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, L. (2017). EFL learners’ acceptance of technology in a computer-assisted language learning (CALL) context: The role of intrinsic-extrinsic motivation in English learning. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(9), 679–685. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.9.953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and students' sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, H. L., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hugheym, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition. Rowley: Newbury House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kissau, S. (2006). Gender differences in second language motivation: An investigation of micro- and macro-level influences. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 73–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & Adler, S. (1993). Person-versus computer-mediated feedback. Computers in Human Behavior, 9(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(93)90017-M.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2002). University students' perceptions of native and non-native speaker teachers of English. Language Awareness, 11(2), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410208667051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavolette, E., Polio, C., & Kahng, J. (2015). The accuracy of computer-assisted feedback and students' responses to it. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 50–68 10125/44417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, F. V., & Phua, J. (2019). Teaching writing with language feedback technology. Computers and Composition, 54, 102518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2019.102518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liou, H. C., & Lee, S. L. (2011). How wiki-based writing influences college students’ collaborative and individual composing products, processes, and learners’ perceptions. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01213.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagata, N. (1996). Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition. CALICO Journal, 14(1), 53–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2014). Promoting FL collaborative writing through the use of Web2.0 tools. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, E. (2003). Project Essay Grade: PEG. In M. D. Shermis & J. C. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 43–54). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2005). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: A case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500099219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranalli, J. (2018). Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 653–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards J. (2008). Teaching listening and speaking: From theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

  • Rodgers, D. L., & Withrow-Thorton, B. J. (2005). The effect of instructional media on learner motivation. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(4), 333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, Y., & Foltz, P. (2014). Assessing collaborative problem solving through automated technologies. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 9, 389–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rostami, A., & Hoveidi, A. (2014). Improving descriptive writing skills using blog-based peer feedback. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(2). 227–234.

  • Rouhi, A., & Vafadar, H. (2014). Web-based and collaborative corrective feedback: Exploring options for reducing the dependence on the teacher in l2 writing. Teaching English Language, 8(2), 59–90 Retrieved December 11, 2019 from http://www.teljournal.org/article_53818_72e37b775970f46910d1ced351f3f7dc.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samar, R. G., Nemati, M., & Amini, S. (2016). Which type of feedback is more conductive to better writing achievement? Computer-assisted, peer or teacher feedback? Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 6(8), 78–93.

  • Saricaoglu, A. (2018). The impact of automated feedback on L2 learners’ written causal explanations. ReCALL, 31(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401800006X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 1(13), 96–120 http://dx.doi.org/10125/44170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shirani Bidabadi, F. (2013). Motivational English language learning strategies through computers among EFL learners. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1(2), 103–112 Retrieved December 19, 2019 from http://jfl.iaun.ac.ir/article_550481_1eccf94ce981d375aeedcccc5b2a1460.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soltanpour, F., & Valizadeh, M. (2018). The effect of individualized technology-mediated feedback on EFL learners’ argumentative essays. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(3), 12. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.3p.125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sotillo, S. (2010). Quality and type of corrective feedback, noticing, and learner uptake in synchronous computer-mediated text-based and voice chats. In M. Putz and L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing and second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 351–370). Amsterdam, NLD: John Benjamins Publishing.

  • Srichanyachon, N. (2012). Teacher written feedback for L2 learners’ writing development. Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Studies, 12(1), 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stepp-Greany, J. (2002). Student perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 165–180 10125/25148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, M. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in adult ESL classrooms. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1–21 https://doi.org/10.7916/D8TT4QG7.

  • Taras, M. (2003). To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 549–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930301678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiene, D., & Luft, P. (2001). Teaching in a technology-rich classroom. Educational Technology, 41(4), 23–31 Retrieved December 19, 2019 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, B. (2009). Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ware, P. D. (2003). From involvement to engagement in online communication: Promoting intercultural competence in foreign language education. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.

  • Ware, P. D. (2004). Confidence and competition online: ESL student perspectives on web-based discussions in the classroom. Computers and Composition, 21(4), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ware, P. (2011). Computer-generated feedback on student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 45(4), 769–774. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.272525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CAUCO Journal, 13(2), 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MA in TEFL, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

    Narjis Sherafati

  2. TEFL, Tonekabon Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tonekabon, Iran

    Farzad Mahmoudi Largani

  3. TEFL, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    Shahrzad Amini

Authors
  1. Narjis Sherafati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Farzad Mahmoudi Largani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shahrzad Amini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Narjis Sherafati.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 7 The details of scoring rubric used for evaluating the essays by Jacobs et al. (1981)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sherafati, N., Largani, F.M. & Amini, S. Exploring the effect of computer-mediated teacher feedback on the writing achievement of Iranian EFL learners: Does motivation count?. Educ Inf Technol 25, 4591–4613 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10177-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10177-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation