bitcoin, cryptocurrency, virtual-3024279.jpg

Dr Amal Ismail Mohammed AbouRezk

Lecturer of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)

October 6 University-Egypt

[email protected]

00201153208161

Abstract.

   This study aimed at investigating the effect of computer-mediated corrective feedback in developing EFL learners’ performance in grammar. Twenty female Saudi students participated in this study. They enrolled in an English course (1st-year Diploma) at Al-Alamyia institute for Technology& computer situated in the Northern area, Saudi Arabia. They study English as an FL. They were randomly distributed into two groups:  one experimental group was taught by using the CMC feedback through the ICALL program and a control grouwhichat was taught by the traditional computer feedback. A questionnaire was used to measure the attitudes of the students in the two groups towards using the computer feedback. Findings of the study reveal that there were significant differences between the mean scores of the control group and the experimental group in favour of the experimental group which received computer corrective feedback. Results of the questionnaire did not show any significant differences between the attitudes of the two groups towards the program in its two forms of feedback. Both groups found the program helpful and interesting to use in learning grammar.

keywords

IntellIntelligent computer in language learning (ICALL) Compu Computer-mediated active (CMC) Feedback

 

أثر إستخدام التغذية الراجعة التصحيحية عن طريق الحاسوب فى تنمية تعلم القواعد النحوية لمتعلمى اللغة الإنجليزية كلغة اجنبية

د.أمل اسماعيل محمد أبو رزق

مدرس تدريس اللغة الإنجليزية كلغة اجنبية

جامعة 6 أكتوبر / مصر

الملخص

يهدف هذه البحث الى قياس أثر التغذية الراجعة التصحيحية عن طريق الحاسوب على تعلم القواعد النحوية لدى الطلاب متعلمى اللغه الإنجليزية كلغة أجنبية.تم إختيار العينة من الطالبات  السعوديات بمعهد العالمية الفرقة الاولى  وتم تقسيمهن الى مجموعتين مجموعة تجريبية ومجموعة ضابطة . تم  إستخدام صورتين من التغذية الراجعة عن طريق البرنامج المعد من قبل الباحثة حيث تم تدريس الطالبات بالمجموعة الضابطة بإستخدام التغذية الراجعة التقليدية التى تشير الى صحة او خطا  الإجابة فقط وتدريس المجموعة التجريبية بإستخدام التغذية الراجعة التصحيحية التى تحلل الخطا للطالبة.تم تطبيق استبيان لكلا المجموعتين  بعد تطبيق البرنامج .أثبت البحث صدق فروضه حيث أشارت النتائج الى وجود فروق ذات دلالة إحصائية بين أداء المجموعة التجريبية و أداء المجموعة الضابطة لصالح المجموعة التجريبية وهذا يشير الى أثر التغذية الراجعة التصحيحية عن طريق الحاسوب على أداء الطالبات فيما يتعلق بتعلم القواعد النحوية باللغه الإنجليزية كما أشارت النتائج لعدم وجود فروق ذات دلالة بين المجموعتين فى اتجاههن نحو استخدام التغذية الراجعة عن طريق الحاسوب فى صورتيها التقليدية والذكية حيث أشارت كلا المجموعتين الى فعالية وفائدة التغذية الراجعة فى تعلم قواعد اللغه الإنجليزية

 

 

 

Introduction

 Grammar is an important part of language skills. Communicating in a language effectively requires mastering the rules of grammar. Teaching English grammar is the most difficult skill for many teachers at all levels(Baron,1982).SStudentsface difficulties in learning grammar that could cause them hato ve moments of anxiety as mentioned(Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam, 2011). They asserted that to overcome these difficulties, English teachers have to do their best to make the grammar classroom a “non-threatening, imaginative and useful activity within the English curriculum”

Technology can be used as an effective teaching tool for English learners. English language learners need a variety of language experiences. They need to use language in a meaningful context. Computers can provide English language students with authentic language experiences as they learn a new language (Ybarra, 2003).

The computer can give students detailed feedback and correct their errors. According to (Nagata &Swisher, 1995), there are two kinds of feedback. In the past, computer feedback was limited to surface error messages. NLP can give more detailed and informative feedback than was previously used.

Context of the Problem

One of the aims of the L syllabus by the Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia is to enable students to speak, write, read and listen with understanding to English and make presentations in acceptable English theories grammatically correct. Using Arabic and memorization are the traditional strategies in teaching English in schools in Saudi Arabia as mentioned (Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam, 2011).  Grammar difficulties were the most challenging issues in teaching writing skills (Al-Mubark, 2016).

Studies indicate that teachers spend most of their busy time

in correcting students’ assignments by offering vague comments in red ink which are frustrating to them. They are overloaded with teaching hours to a high number of students and find themselves busy correcting hundreds of assignments. Therefore, their comments are not detailed on students’ errors (Kelly 2018).

 Corrections made by teachers are frequently arbitrary and not consistent (Gray, 2004). Students’ texts are commonly misread, and teachers’ comments are vague and confusing (Zamel,185).  Making full or selective grammatical corrections are iso not effective as asserted by (Krashan 2004; Leowen 1998). Although educators consider pedagogical grammar an important component of EFL training, teaching grammar courses has always been challenging because grammar is complex and because some teachers have prejudices toward it (Liu, Master,&Peter, 2003).

Statement of the Problem

The problem of this study is represented in the weakness of Saudi EFL learners’ performance in grammar.

Research Questions

The problem of this study can be stated in the following main questions:

  1. Are there significant differences in the EFL learners’ mean scores of the post-test in using English tenses due to the computer-mediated corrective (CMC) feedback and traditional computer feedback?
  2. What are the attitudes of EFL learners towards using CMC feedback in their grammar classes?

Hypotheses

  • There are no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the experimental group and the control group in the pre posttest before the treatment.
  • There are statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the experimental group and the control group in the pre posttest in favour of the post-test scores.

 Theoretical Background

Computer-Assisted in Language Learning (CALL) Systems

Through CALL systems, natural language processing analyzes learners’ language production to provide them with feedback. The feedback guides students in their learning process as it either gives the location of the error or provides them with additional information about the nature of the error. This is supported by the conclusions of Levin &Evans(1995) who developed a system that can identify and explain the errors in terms of linguistic nature and Nagata’s (1993) study in which feedback has proved to be effective in the acquisition of case marking particles in Japanese.

Ideally,  Tschichold ( 2003) added that CALL programs guide and help students in the learning process, correcting at least some of the errors students make. Keeping track of student performance on the one hand and error diagnosis on the other thus become key elements that form the basis for meaningful feedback and customized exercises. Some examples of ways that computers can be integrated into courses include the use of grammar classes to work through common grammar errors and complete exercises (Sachs& Long, 1998).

 Grammar Problems in EFL Classrooms

Grammar is regarded as an aid to language users in accurately communicating their messages, not as some isolated body of knowledge that must be studied for its own sake. Language learning is essentially Grammar learning, and it is a mistake to think otherwise (Fordsen,1991).

Doman (2005) stated that the focus in language teaching has moved from understanding to producing, from getting students to speak correctly to get them to speak fluently. He added that grammar should be used as a tool to build communicative abilities and to strengthen skills that are needed for authentic communication to take place.

Teaching English in Saudi Arabia has many weaknesses. Using traditional strategies and headteacher-centre traction where teachers use Arabic and grammar-translation methods are commonly practised as mentioned (Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam, 2011). They advised that. One should regularly practice oral and written communication, especially with English native speakers. Lack of authentic materials and motivation from teachers are other factors that negatively affect teaching grammar.

Giving feedback in grammar lessons is a major topic that had the interest of researchers in the areas of ICALL and CMC. Researchers use two distinct, yet complementary environments that focus on learner-computer and linter personal interactions respectively by exploiting the strengths of different technology-mediated pedagogical approaches in providing explicit and implicit feedback for both form and meaning-based learning activities (Heift,2017).

Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback

Corrective feedback (CF) is commonly used in teaching and learning languages, where comments are given to learners by their teachers. “Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback” is a term derived from CF. It is a comment given to the students regarding their computer errors (Hadiyanto, 2019).

According to Soori, Kafipour & Soury (2011), corrective feedback takes the form of responses to learner sentences containing an error. The responses can consist of (1) an indication that an error has been committed, (2) provision of the correct target language form, (3) metalinguistic information about the nature of the error, or (4) any combination of the above. CF occurs frequently in instructional settings, but much less frequently in naturalistic settings. Petchprasert’s (2012) study confirmed that feedback guides students in their learning process and helps them in understanding what they are learning.

There are different types of corrective feedback. Lyster & Ranta (1997: 46) categorized them into seven types: explicit error correction, clarification requests, recast, metalinguistic feedback, repetition, elicitation and translation. Jiang& Riberiro’s (2017) study focused on metalinguistic corrective feedback types. It is very beneficial to students in learning la Lengua, age, especially the grammatical rules.

This study focuses on metalinguistic corrective feedback as one of the CMC feedback types. According to Gutiérrez (2008), metalinguistic feedback requires learners to explain the errors using the target language. This type of feedback could lead to better performance in grammar learning.

Review of Related Studies

Feedback and ICALL Systems

Some studies have shown the benefits of incorporating feedback in ICALL systems. One of them is Yang & Akahori (1998) who implemented error analysis for a CALL program using natural language processing techniques. This program was used in learning the passive voice in Japanese. It was effective in enabling learners to detect their errors through displaying feedback messages that helped guide learners to correct their errors. Furthermore in another study, Reuer (2003) used the ICALL system. Language learners are asked to produce complete written sentences in small question-answer dialogues with the computer. It is concluded that the theory of lexical functional grammar is well suited to be used in providing intelligent feedback to learners.

Al-Olimat &AbuSeileek (2015) explored the effect of computer-mediated corrective feedback on the 10th grade EFL students’ performance in writing skills. Seventy-two 10th grade female students at Al HHamrasecondary school for girls situated in Mafraq (Jordan) were selected as the study sample. Findings of the study reveal that there were significant differences between the mean scores of the control group and the experimental groups due to the method of teaching in favour of the experimental groups which received corrective feedback. Similarly, Hadiyanto’s(2019)study aimed to investigate whether the students who got CMC feedback in writing descriptive text have better achievement than those who got traditional feedback (handwriting feedback). It indicates that the students who receive CMC feedback treatment have better achievement in writing descriptive text than those who received traditional feedback (handwriting feedback).

Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback for Grammar

The effectiveness of corrective feedback in developing learning grammar was examined by researchers. Kempen(1992) used three systems for teaching grammar. One which teaches how to conjugate and spell verbs (2) a grammar curriculum; and (3)a student word processor. It was concluded that these techniques can improve the performance of second language instruction.

 One of the early ICALL studies, for instance, that investigated different feedback types for learning grammar was Nagata’s (1993) study which is one of the studies that investigated different types of feedback for learning grammar. The study found a statistically significant difference between traditional and intelligent feedback, favouring intelligent feedback. Similarly, Nagata’s (1995) study compared the efficacy of intelligent CALI feedback with traditional CALI feedback for teaching basic sentence constructions in Japanese. The result indicated that the intelligent CALI feedback is more effective than even the enhanced version of traditional CALI feedback, The result was that the metalinguistic feedback can lead learners to perform significantly better than translation feedback in using complex grammatical structures. This is supported by the conclusions of Nagata (2009) and Heift(2010).

 Although ICALL systems have been developed for language learning,   few empirical studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of feedb, ack, especially in learning and teaching   English grammar.

Methods

Subjects

Twenty students participated in this study. They enrolled in the Enan English course (1st-yearsst year Diploma) at Al-Alamyia institute for Technology& computer situated in Northern area, Saudi Arabia. They were Saudi female students studying English as an FL by nonnative teachers and receiving instruction by a traditional method of teaching (pen-paper). They were randomly assigned into two groups; an experimental group (n=10) which was taught by using the CMC metalinguistic feedback and a control group (n=10) was taught by the traditional computer feedback.

Instruments

The Pre-Post Test

A pre-posttest was prepared to measure the performance of students in grammar (English tenses) before and after the experiment. It was prepared by the researcher. The test was divided into two parts; choose the correct verb for  15 items and correct the mistake in verbs 15 items. The total number of items is (n=30).

Test validity

The test was prepared and given to some professionals and specialists to judge its validity. In the light of suggestions given by them. the test was modified by adding some items and proved to be a valid tool as a pre-posttest. (see Appendix 4 )

Test reliability

To estimate test reliability, a spilt half technique was used, and the correlation coefficient was (0.32). Using Spearman & Brown’s Formula, the reliability was (0.96). The test proved to be reliable. Elsayed (1997). It was administered as a pre –post-test to determine the performance level of students in using English tenses.

 Based on the results of the test; students were randomly assigned. (n=1) traditional computer feedback group and (n=1) CMC computer feedback group.

The ICALL program

 The ICALL-program works through interactive dialogue activities. It takes the teacher’s role by giving questions and feedback based on analyzing the students’ grammatical responses fortoglish tenses. The program was designed to improve the performance of students in using (English tenses). TheyThewer giving questions and receive feedback. When students answer a question, the program provides, immediate feedback, including the correct answer. Every lesson was divided into two parts:

The first part: was an introduction that gave students grammar notes for the English tense.

The second part: exercises in the form of MCQ.

 The program included (10) lessons. Each lesson covered one or two English tenses .10) exercises with (83) items were provided throughout the lessons. The content, design and script were prepared by the researcher. The programmer by HTML was done by a specialist programmer. (see appendix 1).

Questionnaire

A 4-point scale was used (1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3=disagree, 4=strongly disagree). Four variables were used in the questionnaire: grammar exercises, grammar notes, error messages& feedback and the ICALL program. Students were asked to rate 24 items according to their point of view. It was used to find any significant difference between the attitudes of the two groups towards the ICALL program. (see table 3)

Validity of the questionnaire

The questionnaire was prepared in the light of a review of the literature and was judged by a jury to be validated. Some modifications were done according to the suggestions provided by the jury and the questionnaire was used in its final form.

Implementation

Students used the ICALL system in eight consecutive (one hour) sessions. The ICALL system offered two kinds of feedback: traditional feedback that states whether the answer is correct or not and intelligent CMC feedback that provides students with detailed metalinguistic explexplanations of their mistakes. Every session was divided into two steps:

The first step: an is introduction in which students read grammar notes for the English tense.

The second step: exercises in a form of multiple-choice questions.

All students should read the grammar notes at the beginning of each computer session. In each exercise selected passages talTalkTalkout some interesting topics.

Students’ responses were analyzed by a computer. They were provided with feedback. Students in the additional feedback group were given traditional feedback that indicated whether their response was correct or not without explanation. Students in the CMC metalinguistic feedback group received a detailed explanation for the error.

 The following shows one of the exercises provided to students: Suppose students selected live as an option for the answer. They were provided with two kinds of feedback.

 Jack lives in a dormitory. He gets up at seven o’clock.

          lives                               get

The traditional feedback is:

Your response is wrong.

The CMC metalinguistic feedback is:

Live is not expected to be used here.

The subject ”Jack” requires the use of s forms.

A questionnaire was administered after implementation to measure students’ attitudes towards using the CMC feedback and traditional feedback. A 4-point scale was used (1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3=disagree, 4=strongly disagree). Students were asked to rate 24 items according to their point of view. It was used to find any significant difference between the attitudes of the two groups towards the ICALL program.

Results

Table (1)

Data analysis of the study groups on the pre-test

Group

N M S.D. T. value DF

CMC feedback

10 15 3.57

-0.22

18

 

Traditional feedback

10 15.5 5.71

Table (1) shows the mean and standard deviation of the two study groups for the pretest scores, and the results of the test for these groups.

To test the first hypothesis, a T-test was used (independent matched samples). As shown in table (1) T value is (-0.22) which is not significant at (0.01 = 2.55) with freedom degree (18), Therefore the first hypothesis was confirmed.

Table (2)

Data analysis of the study groups on the post-test

Group

N M S.D. T. value DF
CMC Feedback 10 26.2 1.32 8.75

18

Traditional feedback

10 20.6

1.42

 

Results reported in the table (2) indicate that there were significant mean differences between the two groups in favour of the metalinguistic ICALL goupthe; T value is (8.75) which is significant at (0.01 = 2.55) with freedom degree 18. Therefore the second hypothesis was confirmed.

Table (3)

The questionnaire: Traditional Feedback group

Item

Group 2 (n=10) Mean S.D.
1

 

The grammar notes helped me to answer the exercise. 1.30

.48

2

I used the grammar notes in my response to the exercise. 1.80 .63
3 The grammar notes give detailed grammatical explanations. 1.50

.85

4

The grammar notes provided a  detailed description of the English tenses. 1.60 .52
5 The grammar exercises are easy to use 1.30

.48

6

The grammar exercises are designed in a good way 1.20 .42
7 The grammar exercises covered an appropriate number of tenses 1.60

.52

8

The grammar exercises are formatted in a good way 1.40 .52
9 The grammar exercises are used in a self-instruction mode 1.10

.72

10

The feedback is fast enough. 1.30 .32
11 The error messages are clear. 1.50

.48

12

The error messages helped me to focus my attention on what is wrong with my answer. 1.40 .53
13 The error messages include a good amount of details. 1.40

.70

14

The error messages analyze my answer instead of just answering. 1.40 .52
15 The feedback helped me to understand the use of the target structures. 1.70

.95

16

The ICALL program is clear and precise. 1.30 .48
17 The ICALL program helped me to use the English tenses. 1.40

.70

18

The ICALL program helped me to practice the English tenses. 1.30 .48
19 I can use the ICALL program alone without the teacher’s help. 1.50

.85

20

The ICALL program offered useful feedback. 1.50 .53
21 The program feedback facilitated my grammar memorization. 1.50

.71

22

I can use the ICALL program as supplementary work. 1.30 .48
23 I want to use the computer in learning the English tenses in regular classes. 1.20

.42

24

I want to learn the English tenses by using the ICALL program instead of the pen-paper method. 1.20

.42

 

Table (4)

The questionnaire: CMC Feedback group

Item

Group 1 (n=10) Mean S.D.
1

 

The grammar notes helped me to answer the exercise.

1.50

.53

2

I used the grammar notes in my response to the exercise. 1.50 .53
3 The grammar notes give a detailed grammatical explanation. 1.80

.92

4

The grammar notes provided a detailed description of the English tenses. 1.90 .74
5 The grammar exercises are easy to use 1.90

.74

6

The grammar exercises are designed in a good way 1.90 .74

7

The grammar exercises covered an appropriate amount of tenses 2.00

.67

8 The grammar exercises are formatted in a good way 2.00

.94

9

The grammar exercises are used in a self-instruction mode 2.20 .79
10

The feedback is fast enough.

1.50

.71

11 The error messages are clear. 1.90 .74

12

The error messages helped me to focus my attention on what is wrong with my answer. 2.20 1.14
13 The error messages include a good amount of details. 2.50

.97

14

The error messages analyze my answer instead of just answering. 2.30 .95
15 The feedback helped me to understand the use of the target structures. 2.30

.82

16

The ICALL program is clear and precise. 1.70 1.06
17

The ICALL program helped me to use the English tenses.

1.50

.71

18

The ICALL program helped me to practice the English tenses. 1.50 .71
19 I can use the ICALL program alone without the teacher’s help. 1.90

.88

20

The ICALL program offered useful feedback. 2.00 .47
21 The program feedback facilitated my grammar memorization. 1.60

.52

22

I can use the ICALL program as supplementary work. 2.10 .57
23 I want to use the computer in learning the English tenses in regular classes. 1.40

.70

24

I want to learn the English tenses by using the ICALL program instead of the pen-paper method. 1.50

.85

 

Tables (3-4) present the (mean-and standard deviation for each item on the questionnaire. Results show that the two groups have positive attitudes toward the program in its two forms in learning and using the English tenses.

Discussion

   This study aimed at investigating the effect of CMC feedback in developing EFL students’ performance in grammar. To achieve this aim, the researcher used a pa re-post experimental design with two groups: an experimental group and a control group. About the study’s hypothesis, it can be concluded that there is a difference between students who were taught by using CMC feedback and those taught by traditional feedback. Students who got CMC feedback through ICALL prtheram got higher scores than those who got traditional feedback. The findings can be summarized as follows: There are stastatisticallygnificant differences between n mean scores of the control group and the experimental group in English grammar after the treatment in favour of the experimental group.

Group 1 CMC feedback (metalinguistic) used the program providing metalinguistic feedback and group 2 used (traditional feedback) providing traditional feedback for the error without explanation. Use in the T-test as shown in tables (1-2), results showed that there are significant differences between the mean scores of the two groups favouring the CMC metalinguistic feedback group in their use of English tenses.

 Some factors may account for these results; the grammar notes that were read before each computer session. By reading notes, learners were provided with a detailed grammatical explanation for the English tense that was covered in the lesson. Learners should read the grammar notes before moving to the exercises. Learners of higher performance depended on the grammar notes in their answers without using the error messages as learners of low performance. Furthermore, the feedback in the CMC Metalinguistic form affected the performance of learners who had to rely on the error message to know the mistake and avoided it in the following exercises.

Results of the questionnaire did not show any significant differences between the attitudes of the two groups towards the program in its two forms of feedback. Both groups found the program helpful and interesting to use in learning grammar. They also wanted to use it instead of the traditional methods of teaching in the regular classes. This refers to the effectiveness of CMC feedback through ICALL programs in teaching English as a whole and in teaching grammar in particular.

Both groups preferred to use the ICALL program as supplementary work and wanted to use it instead of the pen-paper method regardless of whether the program provided CMC metalinguistic or traditional feedback. This is indicated in items 22-23-24. Regarding error messages & feedback, items’ ratings for group 1 are higher than for group 2. Item 12 The error messages helped me to focus my attention on what is wrong in my answer SA=38.5, A=38.5 and for group 2 SA=26.7, A=6.7. Item 14 The error messages analyze my answer instead of just giving the answer SA=46.2, A=30.8 and for group 2 SA=20.0, A=6.7. Item 14 The feedback helped me to understand the use of the target structures  SA=38.5, A=30.8 and for group 2 SA=13.3, A=20.07.T this is due to the kind of feedback that gave a detailed explanation for the error to group 1 and the traditional feedback that indicated the error without explanation for group 2. Item 21The program feedback facilitated my grammar memorization. The total per cent(SA-A) for group 1=69.3and for group 2=66.It is not significantly different and it indicates that feedback facilitated grammar memorization for learners in both groups. (see Tables 3-4).

Concerning the problems of learning/teaching grammar in Saudi Arabia, this study is an attempt to give a solution to teachers and learners. Grammar is so important that it determines how excellently students can write in the English language. By teaching grammar in an active and encouraging atmosphere, many problems regarding listening, speaking, reading, and writing in the English language can be solved. One of the most challenging issues is the grammatical surface-level correction given by teachers. Students find teachers’ remarks unclear and confusing. By using ICALL systems that provide CMC intelligent feedback, students are provided with sufficient feedback and explanations about their errors. Using the ICALL system in grammar lessons also saves the time and effort of teachers. It helps them to avoid the problems of the heavy teaching loads. The problem of paper correction for hundreds of students within a limited time is one of the challenges that can be faced using ICALL systems.

This is supported by (Pun, 2013: 31) who stated that using CALL technology activates students’ thinking patterns and motivates their emotions; the classes are no longer monotonous but enjoyable. The implementation of technological interactivity creates a perfect and encouraging atmosphere. Undoubtedly, technology rises a positive attitude among students and influences their communication skills in learning the language.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The English teachers should support their students in learning English and be more creative in the teaching/ learning process. It is also necessary for the teacher to use creative techniques and avoid the traditional methods of teaching grammar. Grammar activities need to be changed to avoid the boring atmosphere of grammar lessons in the classroom. Therefore, the teacher must recognize students’ needs to select the appropriate techniques that can be applied to them. For that reason, computer-mediated corrective feedback can be implemented to teach grammar. In many ways, computer-mediated corrective feedback has many advantages, such as:

1) it can develop grammar performance

2)  it can be appropriate for different levels.

3)  it can save time and effort for students and teachers.

4) it creates an active atmosphere of learning

5) it improves students’ achievement

Therefore, the teachers are suggested to use CMC feedback in the teaching of grammar. Results of the research are also suggested to be used as a reference by other researchers in conducting related studies to develop students’ grammar performance. It is hoped that teachers will be better able to help students understand their errors in grammar and the grammar rules involved.

 Appendix (1) Sample Lesson

 

Appendix (2) items’ ratings for the CMC Feedback group

The error messages are clear.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid strongly agree 7 53.8 70.0

70.0

agree 3 23.1 30.0 100.0
Total 10 76.9 100.0

Missing

System 3 23.1
Total 13 100.0

 

The error messages helped me to focus my attention on what is wrong with my answer.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid strongly agree 5 38.5 50.0

50.0

agree 5 38.5 50.0 100.0
Total 10 76.9 100.0

Missing

System 3 23.1
Total 13 100.0

 

The error messages analyze what is wrong with my answer.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid strongly agree 6 46.2 60.0

60.0

agree 4 30.8 40.0 100.0
Total 10 76.9 100.0

Missing

System 3 23.1
Total 13 100.0

 

The error messages helped me to understand the use of the target structures.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid strongly agree 5 38.5 50.0

50.0

agree 4 30.8 40.0 90.0
strongly disagree 1 7.7 10.0

100.0

Total 10 76.9 100.0
Missing System 3 23.1

Total

13 100.0

 

The program feedback facilitated my grammar memorization.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid strongly agree 6 46.2 60.0

60.0

agree 3 23.1 30.0 90.0
disagree 1 7.7 10.0

100.0

Total 10 76.9 100.0
Missing System 3 23.1

Total

13 100.0

 Appendix (3) items’ ratings for the Traditional Feedback group

The error messages are clear.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid strongly agree 3 20.0 30.0

30.0

agree 5 33.3 50.0 80.0
disagree 2 13.3 20.0 100.0
Total 10 66.7 100.0
Missing System 5 33.3
Total 15 100.0

 

The error messages helped me to focus my attention on what is wrong with my answer.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid strongly agree 4 26.7 40.0

40.0

agree 1 6.7 10.0 50.0

disagree 4 26.7 40.0

90.0

4 1 6.7 10.0

100.0

Total 10 66.7 100.0
Missing System 5 33.3

Total

15 100.0

 

The error messages analyze what is wrong with my answer.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid strongly agree 3 20.0 30.0

30.0

agree 1 6.7 10.0 40.0
disagree 6 40.0 60.0

100.0

Total 10 66.7 100.0
Missing System 5 33.3

Total

15 100.0

 

The error messages helped me to understand the use of the target structures

Frequency

Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid strongly agree 2 13.3 20.0

20.0

agree 3 20.0 30.0 50.0
disagree 5 33.3 50.0

100.0

Total 10 66.7 100.0
Missing System 5 33.3

Total

15 100.0

 

The program feedback facilitated my grammar memorization.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid strongly agree 4 26.7 40.0

40.0

agree 6 40.0 60.0 100.0
Total 10 66.7 100.0

Missing

System 5 33.3
Total 15 100.0

 

References

  1. Al-Olimat, S.& AbuSeileek ,A.( 2015 ).Using computer-mediated corrective feedback modes in developing students’ writing performance. Teaching English with technology,15(3),3-30.
  2. Al-Mekhlafi, A. M., & Nagaratnam, R. P. (2011). Difculties in teaching and learning grammar in an EFL context. International Journal of Instruction, 4(2), 69–9.
  3. Al-Mubark, A.A. (2016 ). Exploring the problems faced by the teachers in developing English writing skills for the students in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of English Language Teaching.4(10),10-17.
  4. Baron, D. (1982). Grammar and good taste: Reforming the American language. New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press.
  5. Doman, E. (2005). Grammatical consciousness-raising. Modern English Teaching, 14(1), 24-32.
  6. Criswell, E., Byrnes, H., & Pfister, G. (1991). Intelligent automated strategies of teaching foreign languages in context. In M. Swartz & M. Yazdani (Eds.) Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Foreign Language Learning: Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Foreign Language Learning: The bridge to international communication (pp. 307–319). Berlin: Springer-Verlag
  7. Ehsan, R. (2021) Implementing mobile-mediated dynamic assessment for teaching request forms to EFL learners, Computer Assisted Language Learning, DOI: 1080/09588221.2021.1912105
  8. Ferreira, A., Moore, J. D., & Mellish, C. (2007). A Study of feedback strategies in foreign language classrooms and tutorials with implications for intelligent computer-assisted language learning systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17(4), 389-422.
  9. Fordsen, J. (2001). Grammar in writing, In Murci, M  . (Ed.)Teaching English as a Second or Foreign language (3rd Ed), (PP.139-145).Boston. Heinle &Heinle Publishers.
  10. Gray, R. (2004). Grammar correction in ESL/EFL writing classes. The Internet TESL Journal, X(11),34-55.
  11. Gutiérrez, (2008). What does metalinguistic activity in learners’ interaction during a collaborative L2 writing task look like? The Modern Language Journal, 9(2), 519-537.
  12. Hadiyanto, S.(2019).The effect of CMC feedback on the students’ writing. Journal of English Teaching and Learning.8(2),1-26.
  13. Halim, M. S. A. A., & Hashim, H. (2019). Integrating web 2.0 technology in ESL classroom: A review on the benefits and barriers. Journal of Counseling and Educational Technology, 2(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.32698/0381
  14. Heift, T.(2010). Developing an intelligent tutor.CALICO Journal,273,443-459.
  15. Heift, T.&Vyatkina,(2017)Technologies for teaching and learning l2 grammar in Chapelle, C.&Sauro, S.(Eds.)The Hand BOOK of Technology and Second Language Teaching and Learning USA. Wiley Blackwell.
  1. Jiang  W. & Riberiro, A.(2017). Effect of computer-mediated peer-written feedback on ESL/EFL writing: A systematic literature review, Electronic International Journal of Education, Arts and Science,3(6),57-79.
  2. Kary, A., I. (1995).Metalinguistic abilities and performance in first language acquisition. Occasional Papers, the centre of development of English language education, CDELT, Ain Shams University, Cairo, (21),1-32.
  3. Kelly, A. (2018). A place for teaching grammar?  Analysing challenge in developing grammatical knowledge for  ESL  and non-traditional students university.  The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 71-85.
  4. Kempen, G. (1992).Language technology and language instruction: Computational diagnosis of word-level errors, In M.L. Swartz& M.Yazdani (eds.) Nato ASI Series. Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Foreign Language Learning, pp(191-198), Berlin, Springer-Verlag.
  5. Krashan, S.(2004). Applying the comprehension hypothesis: some suggestions. http://www.sd krashen.com/ articles/eta .paper/ index.html
  6. Liu, D. &Master, P. (2003).Grammar teaching in teacher education. Alexandria, TESOL, pp.(6-184).
  7. Leowen, S. (1998). Grammar correction in ESL student writing: How effective is it? HTTP:/ temple.edu/gradmag/fall98/leo,lmwen
  8. Levin, &  Evans, D. (1995). ALICE-chan: A case study in ICALL theory and practice. In V. Holland, J.Kaplan & M. Sams (Eds.) Intelligent Language Tutors: Theory shaping technology (pp. 77–97). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  9. Levin, L., & Evans, D. (1995). ALICE-chan: A case study in ICALL theory and practice. In V. Holland, J.Kaplan & M. Sams (Eds.) Intelligent Language Tutors: Theory shaping technology (pp. 77–97). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  10. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
  11. Manley, J. &Calk, L. (1997). Grammar instruction for writing skills: Do students perceive grammar as useful? Foreign language Annals, 30(1), 73-81.
  12. Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, (25),459-480.
  13. Mei Lin, H. C . (2003). empowering English teachers to grapple with errors in Grammar. The Internet TESL Journal, IX(3),66-89.
  14. Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77(3), 330-339.
  15. Nagata, N. (1995). An effective application of natural language processing in second language instruction. CALICO Journal, 13(1),47-76.
  16. Nagata, N. &Swisher, M.V. (1995).A study of consciousness-raising by computer: The effect of metalinguistic feedback on second language learning, Foreign Language Annals, 28(3), 237-243.
  17. Nagata, N.(2009).Robo-Sensei’ Snip-based error detection and feedback generation. CALICO Journal,14(1),53-75.
  18. Petchprasert, A. (2012). Feedback in second language teaching and learning. US-China Foreign Language, 10(4), 1112-1120.
  19. Pun, M. (2013).The Use of Multimedia Technology in English Language Teaching: A    Global Perspective. Crossing the Border: International Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. 1(1),29-38.
  20. Reuer, V. (2003).Error recognition and feedback with lexical functional grammar, CALICO Journal, 20(3), 497-512.
  21. Sachs, C. & Long, R. (1998).Approaches to introducing ESL students to computers, CALL Journal, 8(2), 11-13.
  22. Sorace, A.(1985).Metalinguistic knowledge and language use in acquisition –poor environments, Applied Linguistics,6(3),239-254.
  23. Soori, A.  Kafipour, R., & Soury, M. (2011). Effectiveness of different types of direct corrective feedback on the correct use of English articles among Iranian EFL students. European Journal of Social Sciences, 26(4), 494-501.
  24. Tschichold, C. (2003).Lexically driven error detection and correction, CALICO Journal, 20(3),549-559.
  25. Yang, J. C .& Akahori, K.(1998).Error analysis in Japanese writing and its implementation computer-assistedisted language learning system on the world wide web., CALICO Journal,15(3)47-65.
  26. Ybarra, R. (2003).Using technology to help ESL /EFL studdevelopoping language skills, IX(3),87-112.
  27. Zame l, V.(199 5). Responding to students’ writing, TESOL Quarterly,19,79-11.
    1. Arabic References
  28. El-Sayed, F.E. (1997).Statistical psychology and measurement of the human mind. Cairo, Dar El Fekr ElAraby, pp.764-525.

About Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *