پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 31 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 498 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,829 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 7,479,040 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 5,581,900 |
Teaching ESL/EFL Writing Skill Website Evaluation: The Purdue Online Writing Lab and Pro Writing Aid | ||
| Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching | ||
| دوره 02، شماره 01 - شماره پیاپی 3، فروردین 2024، صفحه 100-114 اصل مقاله (729.38 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22080/iselt.2023.25121.1049 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Hassan Soleimani* 1؛ Jafar Moqimi2 | ||
| 1Department of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Department of APplied Linguistics, Payame Noor University. Tehran, Iran | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 10 تیر 1402، تاریخ بازنگری: 16 مهر 1402، تاریخ پذیرش: 10 آبان 1402 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| The importance assigned to the role of English language learning (ELL) software and websites has been even more highlighted in online classrooms during the COVID-19 pandemic where teachers and students did not have a face to face interaction. One of the language skills which seems to be negatively affected by the lack of face-to-face interaction between teachers and learners is writing. Among various technology-assisted tools, websites can be effectively used as a source for improving L2 writing skills. However, not all websites encompass suitable content for developing learners’ ESL/EFL writing skills. Therefore, it seems to be a logical concern to guide the students in both selecting and implementing the most relevant and, at the same time, efficient websites for teaching writing skills. Evaluating such websites is one way to respond to this concern. For this purpose, this study aims at evaluating two of the widely used websites specially designed to develop and improve learners’ L2 writing skills: The Purdue Online Writing Lab and Pro Writing Aid. Besides, the two websites would be compared with each other in order to introduce the strengths and weaknesses of each website. The results of such an evaluation would be helpful for both teachers and learners in selecting the most efficient website for improving their writing skills based on their purposes and practical needs. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Writing skill؛ Website؛ Evaluation؛ Purdue Online Writing Lab؛ Pro Writing Aid | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Aguayo-Arrabal, N., & Ramírez-Delgado, C. D. (2020). A proposal of evaluation criteria for the quality of ESL/EFL Websites for Autonomous Learning. In C. Huertas-Abril & M. E. Gómez-Parra (Eds.), International approaches to bridging the language gap (pp. 102–117). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1219-7.ch007
Ahmadi, D., & Reza, M. (2018). The use of technology in English language learning: A literature review. International Journal of Research in English Education, 3(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.29252/ijree.3.2.115
Allison, R., Hayes, C., McNulty, C. A. M., & Young, V. (2019). A comprehensive framework to evaluate websites: Literature review and development of good web. JMIR Formative Research, 3(4), e14372. https://doi.org/10.2196/14372
Castillo, R. C., & Arias, M. B. (2018). Analysing English online resources for children: A practical case with an evaluation template proposal. Pixel-Bit: Revista de Medios y Educación, 53, 7-25. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2018.i53.01
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge University Press.
Duggirala, S. (2016, August 3). 10 Usability heuristics with examples. Prototypr. https://blog.prototypr.io/10-usability-heuristics-with-examples-4a81ada920c
Egbert, J., & Hanson-Smith, E. (Eds.). (1999). CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Fuentes, E. M., & Martinez, J. R. (2018). Design of a checklist for evaluating language learning websites. Porta Linguarum, 30, 23–41. https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.54001
Gençlter, B. (2015). How does technology affect language learning process at an early age? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.552
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Pearson Publications.
Healey, D. (2016). Language learning and technology: Past, present and future. In L. Murray & F. Farr (Eds.), Routledge handbook of language learning and technology (pp. 35–49). Routledge.
Hubbard, P. (1988). An integrated framework for CALL courseware evaluation. CALICO Journal, 6(2), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v6i2.51-72
Hubbard, P. (2011). Evaluation of courseware and websites. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Present and future promises of CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp. 407–440). CALICO.
Kartal, E. (2005). The Internet and autonomous language learning: A typology of suggested aids. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 4(4), 54–58.
Kelly, C. (2000). Guidelines for designing a good Website for ESL students. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(3), 1–9. http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kelly-Guidelines
Kir, E., & Kayak, S. (2013). The evaluation of websites teaching English as a foreign language. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(4), 2788–2795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.659
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Liu, Z. H., Liu, G. Z., & Hwang, G. J. (2011). Constructing multidimensional evaluation criteria for English learning websites. Computers & Education, 56, 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.019.
Nelson, J. T. (1998). A system for the evaluation of ESL Websites [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Washington State University.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1982). Method, Approach, design and procedure. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586789.
Sabri, M. (2010). Evaluation d’un support numerique d’apprentissage grammatical. Information Sciences for Decision Making, 37. http://isdm.univ-tln.fr/PDF/isdm37/NEDEP_ISDM_Al_Sabri.pdf
Shen, H., Yuan, Y., & Ewing, R. (2015). English learning websites and digital resources from the perspective of Chinese university EFL practitioners. ReCALL, 27(2), 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000263
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education).
Son, J. B. (2005). Exploring and evaluating language learning Web sites. In J. B. Son & S. O’Neill (Eds.), Enhancing learning and teaching: Pedagogy, technology and language (pp. 215–227). Post Pressed.
Susser, B. (2001). A defense of checklists for software evaluation. ReCALL, 13(2), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344001000726
Tomlinson, B. (2009). Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Underwood, J. (1984). Linguistics, computers, and the language teacher: A communicative approach. Newbury House. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 343 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 440 |
||