The Contribution of Electronic Feedback In L2 Multicultural Writing Class Using the Edmodo

Tazkiyatunnafs Elhawwa

Abstract


Corrective feedback is very helpful to EFL learners since it helps learners to acquire grammatical features (Ellis, 2008). The focus of the research attempted to investigate the contribution of Electronic feedback in multicultural writing class using the Edmodo. The electronic feedback was classified into three types, namely; direct, indirect, and metalinguistic as proposed by Ellis (2009) and 3 different sources, namely; teacher, peer, and self. The study was descriptive quantitative and qualitative research; whose subjects were 25 learners of three different ethnic groups (Dayaknese, Banjarese, and Javanese). The instruments were questionnaire and observation. The data were in their progress on An academic essay writing of electronic feedback. The concerns of the electronic feedback were on language form, organization, and content. The finding confirmed that the most area contribution of electronic feedback at a whole was on language form, the source and type of feedback that most contributed to EFL writing class was electronic teacher direct feedback. It showed that L2 learners preferred that their teachers provided direct electronic feedback on grammatical error corrections and attended to all of their mistakes.

Keywords


contribution; electronic feedback; multicultural writing class; Edmodo

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alm, A. (2009). Blogs as protected spaces for language learners. In Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009.

Amiri, E. (2012). A Study of The Application of Digital Technologies In Teaching And Learning English Language And Literature. International journal of scientific & technology research 1 (5), 103-107,

Birch, D. & Volkov, M. (2007). Assessment of online reflections: Engaging English second language (ESL) students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 291-306.

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Research on electronic cf in language classes. In Electronic corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing (pp. 49–74). New York: Routledge.

Bitchener, John., Basturkmen, Helen., & East, Martin. (2010). The focus of supervisor electronic feedback to thesis/dissertation students. International Journal of English Studies, 10 (2), 79-97.

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) https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9, 267–296.

Elhawwa, T, Rukmini, D, Mujiyanto, J, Sutopo. D. (2019). Effect of Focused and Unfocused Feedback on Learners’ Writing Accuracy within Different Gender and Cultural Background Groups. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) 10(3).

Elhawwa, T, Rukmini, D, Mujiyanto, J, Sutopo. D. (2019). The learners’ writing progress Using Direct Feedback. Proceeding of 5th International conference on Science, Education, and Technology.

Elhawwa, T, Rukmini, D, Mujiyanto, J, Sutopo. D. (2020). The learners perceive electronic feedback in writing multicultural class using Edmodo. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Advance & Scientific Innovation, ICASI 2020 (20), Medan, Indonesia.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, Rod. (2009). A typology of electronic corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023, 97–107.

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

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2017). Writing with 21st century social tools in the L2 classroom: New literacies, genres, and writing practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 52–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.04.002.

Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X.

Ferris, D., & Bitchener, J. (2012). Electronic corrective feedback for L2 development : Current knowledge and future research. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.62, 855–860.

Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of Feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001.

Holland, C., & Muilenburg, L. (2011, March). Supporting student collaboration: Edmodo in the classroom. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 3232–3236). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Hourigan, T. & Murray, L. (2010). Using blogs to help language students to develop reflective learning strategies: Towards a pedagogical framework. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 209-225.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issuesCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781139524742.

Jamalinesari, A., Rahimi, F., Gowhary, H., & Azizifar, A. (2015). The effects of teacher-electronic direct vs. indirect feedback on students’ writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.018, 116–123.

Karim, Khaled. (2013). The effects of direct and indirect electronic corrective feedback (CF) on English-as-a-second- language (ESL) students’ revision accuracy and writing skills. University of Victoria In the Department of Linguistics.

Kongchan, C. (2012, November). How a non-digital-native teacher makes use of Edmodo. Proceedings of the 5th Edition of the International Conference “ICT for Language Learning,” Florence, Italy (pp. 207–210).

Kurzweil Educational Systems , Inc. (2004). White Paper. Using Technology as a Solution for English Language Learners in Higher Education.

Liu, J., & Sadler, R. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0.

Lu, R., & Bol, L. (2007). A comparison of anonymous versus identifiable e-peer review on college student writing performance and the extent of critical feedback. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(2), 100–115.

Saadi, Z. and Saadaat, M. (2015). EFL Learners‟ Writing Accuracy: Effects of Direct and Metalinguistic Electronic Feedback. Theory and Practice in Language Studies [online]. 5(10), 2053-2063. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0510.11

Sain, N. et al. (2013). Utilizing Email for Online Corrective Feedback in Academic Writing Among ESL Undergraduates. 3rd International Conference on Foreign Language Learning and Teaching, March 2013, Bangkok, Thailand [online]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263852239

Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96–120.

Schultz, J. (2000). Computers and collaborative writing in the foreign language curriculum. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 121–150). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524735.008.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused electronic corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x.

Sheen, Y. (2010). The role of oral and electronic corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 169–179.

Smalley, L, Regina., & Mary, K, Ruetten. (2008). Refining composition skills. Heinle ELT.

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learner’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532.

Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System,29 (4), 491-501.

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. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003.

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.08.004.

Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts andissues (pp. 105–122). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.008.

Well, M., Pegler, C. & Mason, R. (2005). Use of innovative technologies on an e-learning course. The Internet and Higher Education. 8, 61-71.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Tazkiyyatun Elhawwa

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Proceedings of International Conference on English Language Teaching (INACELT) is published by Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Palangka Raya Indonesia in collaboration with Journal on English as a Foreign Language.

Editor and Administration Address: 

Department of English Language Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and EducationInstitut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Palangka Raya Indonesia, Jalan G. Obos Komplek Islamic Centre Palangka Raya, Kalimantan Tengah, Indonesia, Postal Code 73111, Email: [email protected], Website: http://e-proceedings.iain-palangkaraya.ac.id/index.php/inacelt




Flag aCounter