STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS OF E-FEEDBACK TYPES: ONLINE TEACHER FEEDBACK (OTF), ONLINE PEER FEEDBACK (OPF), AND AUTOMATED WRITING EVALUATION FEEDBACK (AWE)

Year 2023, Volume: 5, 53 - 79, 20.10.2023

Ümit Özkanal , Emine Eren Gezen

https://doi.org/10.48166/ejaes.1343506

Cited By: 1

Abstract

This study investigated students’ attitudes and perceptions of online teacher feedback (OTF), online peer feedback (OPF), and automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback and their impact on the writing performance of EFL learners. It was conducted over two semesters with freshman ELT students. The progress writing technique was implemented. Data were collected through a questionnaire with 20 open ended questions administered to the participants, and writing samples were collected at various stages of the writing process and semi-structured interviews with volunteer students. 65 students were involved in the questionnaire and 10 students participated in the interviews. The results showed that the use of OTF, OPF, and AWE feedback all had a positive impact on learners' writing performance in various areas, including grammar, organization, coherence, and vocabulary. Participants reported that they found the e-feedback, especially the one provided by the instructor helpful and that it improved their writing most while the one provided by the peers was not as effective as the others. The study suggests that the use of written e-feedback from multiple sources can be effective in improving EFL learners' writing performance, and that incorporating OTF, OPF, and AWE feedback can be a valuable addition to the traditional writing process.

Keywords

Online education, online teacher feedback, online peer feedback, automated writing evaluation feedback, efl writing

References

• Ab Hamid, H., & Romly, R. (2020). Teachers’ perception on giving feedback to students’ online writing assignment during movement control order (MCO). Proceedings of the First International Conference on Science, Technology, Engineering and Industrial Revolution (ICSTEIR 2020), 536, 461-463. http://dx.doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210312.076
• AbuSa’aleek, A. O., & Shariq, M. (2021). Innovative practices in instructor e-feedback: A case study of e- feedback given in three linguistic courses during the COVID 19 pandemic. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on Covid 19 Challenges, (1), 183-198. https://dx.doi.org/10 .24093/awej/covid.14
• Armstrong, K. (2010). Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity in Graded and Ungraded Writing. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 690-702. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1944-9720.2010.01109.X.
• Arslan, R. S. (2013). Integrating feedback into prospective English language teachers' writing process via blogs and portfolios. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 13(1), 131- 150.
• Bai, L. R. (2012). Validation of Peer Feedback Pattern Inventory for College English Writing. Modern Foreign Languages, 35, 184-192.
• Basabrin, A. (2019). Exploring EFL instructors’ and students’ perceptions of written corrective feedback on Blackboard platform: A case study. Arab World English Journal, Special Issue 1: Application of Global ELT Practices in Saudi Arabia, 179-192.
• Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702-726.
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the Linguistic Accuracy Level of Advanced L2 Writers with Written Corrective Feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 204-217. doi: 10.1016/j. jslw.2010.10.002
• 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.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
• Demirbilek, M. (2015). Social media and peer feedback: What do students really think about using Wiki and Facebook as platforms for peer feedback? Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(3), 211- 224.
• Doughty, C. & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams, (Eds.) ,Focus on form in classroom SLA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dudeney, G, & Hockly, N. (2007). How to Teach English with Technology. Essex: Pearson Education. Faizi, R. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions towards using Web 2.0 in language learning and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 23(3), 1219-1230.
• Fan, Y., & Xu, J. (2020). Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50, 100775.
• Ferris, D. R. (1997). The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (2), 315-339. doi: 10.2307/3588049
• Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. Cognitive Processes in Writing, 31-50.
• Grigoryan, A. (2017). Audiovisual commentary as a way to reduce transactional distance and increase teaching presence in online writing instruction: Student perceptions and preferences. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(1), 83–128.
• Han, Y. (2017) Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 69 (2017), pp. 133-142
• Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31-38.
• 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, 955–968.
• Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Igi-global. (2023). Automated feedback. Retrieved from https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/automated-feedback/50921
• Ismail, N., Maulan, S., & Hasan, N. H. (2008). The Impact of Teacher Feedback on ESL Students’ Writing Performance. Academic Journal of Social Studies, 8(1), 45-54.
• Kaufman, J., and C. Schunn. 2011. “Students’ Perceptions About Peer Assessment for Writing: Their Origin and Impact on Revision Work.” Instructional Science 39 (3): 387–406. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6.
• Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E. (2021). Peer feedback or peer feedforward? Enhancing students’ argumentative peer learning processes and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 768–784.
• Lee, E. J. E. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System,41(2), 217–230.
• Lefevre, D., & Cox, B. (2017). Delayed instructional feedback may be more effective, butis this contrary to learner’s preferences? British Journal of Educational Technology,48(6), 1357–1367.
• Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. . In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, 57-68. Cambridge University Press.
• 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.
• Lim, S. C., Renandya, W. A. (2020). Efficacy of written corrective feedback in writing instruction: a meta-analysis. TESL-EJ, 24(3).
• Luo, Y. and Liu, Y. (2017) Comparison between Peer Feedback and Automated Feedback in College English Writing: A Case Study. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 7, 197-215.
• Mahfoodh, O.H.A. (2017) “I feel disappointed”: EFL university students' emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31 (2017), pp. 53-72.
• Maliborska, V., & You, Y. (2016). Writing conferences in a second language writing classroom: Instructor and student perspectives. TESOL Journal, 7(4), 874-897.
• Marczak, M., Krajka, J., & Malec, W. (2016). Web-based assessment and language teachers from Moodle to WebClass. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 26(1), 44–59.
• Mohsen, M. A., & Abdulaziz, A. (2019). Effectiveness of using a hybrid mode of automated writing evaluation system on EFL students' writing. Teaching English with Technology, 19(1), 118–131.
• Morch, A. I., Engeness, I., Cheng, V. C., Cheung, W. K., & Wong, K. C. (2017). EssayCritic: Writing to Learn with a Knowledge-Based Design Critiquing System. Educational Technology & Society, 20, 213-223.
• Muncie, J. (2000). Using Written Teacher Feedback in EFL Composition Classes. ELT Journal, 54(1), 4753. doi: 10.1093/elt/54.1.47
• Neumann, K. L., & Kopcha, T. J. (2019). Using Google Docs for peer-then-teacher review on middle school students' writing. Computers and Composition, 54, 1-16.
• Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401.
• Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 39(1), 102-122.
• Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2019). The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students' argumentation-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56, 548–557.
• Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., Bayat, A., van Ginkel, S., Biemans, H. J., & Mulder, M. (2020). Students' online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing, and content learning: Does gender matter? Interactive Learning Environments, 28(6), 698–712.
• O’Malley, J. M., & Pierce, L. V. (1996). Authentic Assessment for English Language Students: Practical Approaches for Teachers. New York: Addison-Wesley.
• Pariyanto. (2012). The Use of Web-based Feedback on ESL Students' Writing Quality. Proceedings of the 59th TEFLIN International Conference: English Language Learning and Teaching in the Digitization Era. Widya Mandala Catholic University Surabaya, 6-8 November 2012.
• Reinholz, D. L. (2018). Three approaches to focusing peer feedback. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 1–8.
• Reugg, R. (2018). Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing. RumelidE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (13), 161-178.
• Richards, J. C. (2015). Technology in Language Teaching Today. Indonesia Journal of English Language Teaching, 10(1), 18-32.
• Rollinson, P. (2005). Using Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30. doi: 10.1093/elt/cci003
• Saeed, M. A., & Al Qunayeer, H. S. (2020). Exploring teacher interactive e-feedback on students' writing through Google Docs: factors promoting interactivity and potential for learning. The Language Learning Journal, https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1786711
• Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8, 31-54.
• Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in second language acquisition, 32(2), 203-234.
• Sobhani, M., & Tayebipour, F. (2015). The effects of oral vs. written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners' essay writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(8), 1601.
• Susanti, A., & Tarmuji, A. (2016). Techniques of optimizing WhatsApp as an instructional tool for teaching EFL writing in Indonesian senior high schools. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 4(10), 26-31.
• Tehrani, F. A. (2018). Feedback for writing or writing for feedback. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(4), 162-178.
• Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27.
• Trotman, W. (2011). Action research on feedback on EAP writing: Teacher-student oral conferencing in a higher education context in Turkey. English Language Teacher Education & Development, 14, 15-23.
• Wang, Y. J., Shang, H. F., & Briody, P. (2013). Exploring the impact of using automated writing evaluation in English as a foreign language university students' writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 234-257.
• Wei, M. (2015). An Empirical Study into Effects of Feedback on College English Writing. Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University, 22, 43-50.
• Wihastyanang, W. D., Kusumaningrum, S.R., Latief., A., Cahyono., B. Y. (2020). Impacts Of Providing Online Teacher And Peer Feedback On Students’ Writing Performance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE Volume: 21 Number: 2
• Wu, W.S. (2006). The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the revisions of EFL writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Languages and Literature, p.125-139.
• Wu, Z. (2019). Lower English proficiency means poorer feedback performance? A mixed-methods study. Assessing Writing, 41, 14-24.
• Yang, X. Q., & Dai, Y. C. (2015). Practice Research on Self-Regulated Writing Model of College English Teaching Based on Pigai Network. Computer-Assisted Foreign Language Education, 2, 17-23.
• Yu, S., Zhang, Y., Zheng, Y., Yuan, K., & Zhang, L. (2019). Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master’s theses: A Macau study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 50-65.
• Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-222.
• Zhang, W. L. (2016). A Peer Response Writing Activity for College Level Japanese Classes. Japanese Learning and Research, 182, 86-91.
• Zhou, Y. S. (2013). A Comparative Study of Teacher Feedback, Peer Feedback and Online Feedback in English Writing. Foreign Language World, 3, 87-96.