پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 31 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 499 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,862 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 7,498,801 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 5,597,073 |
Enhancing Writing Skills in L2 Learners through Technology-Mediated Written Corrective Feedback: A Scoping Review of Articles Published between 2015 and 2025 | ||
| Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching | ||
| دوره 03، شماره 01 - شماره پیاپی 5، فروردین 2025، صفحه 80-99 اصل مقاله (719.27 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22080/iselt.2025.29098.1097 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Reza Norouzi1؛ Seyedeh Yasaman Zeinodin* 2؛ Meisam Rahimi3 | ||
| 1M.A. in Applied Linguistics (TEFL), Center of English Language, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran | ||
| 2M.A. in Applied Linguistics (TEFL), Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3Ph.D., in Applied Linguistics (TEFL), Assistant Professor, Center of English Language, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 05 اردیبهشت 1404، تاریخ بازنگری: 28 خرداد 1404، تاریخ پذیرش: 26 تیر 1404 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| This scoping review aimed to investigate the impact of Technology-Mediated Written Corrective Feedback (TMWCF) on improving second language writing skills by analyzing 36 studies published between 2015 and 2025. To this end, a total of 36 articles indexed in large databases, such as ERIC, Google Scholar, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, and Scopus, were analyzed using NVivo 14. After the content coding of the studies, the results revealed that grammatical accuracy was more significantly improved by technology compared to other aspects of writing, such as fluency. The mixed-methods design was the most common research design, and undergraduate EFL students mostly agreed to participate in these studies. Results also revealed that feedback delivered through written means, such as written comments in Microsoft Word, was the most common type of feedback given to EFL learners. Additionally, technological tools like Grammarly were the most commonly employed technology for assessing writing. Besides, the most common limitations of these studies were their small sample sizes and the generalizability of their results. The present study also provides several implications for EFL teachers and learners regarding the effectiveness of TMWCF in improving the writing quality and accuracy of EFL learners. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| EFL learners؛ Scoping review؛ Technology-Mediated Written Corrective Feedback؛ Writing skill | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abdu, S. M. M., & Abdullah, A. M. (2022). Cultivating learners’ technology-mediated dialogue of feedback in writing: Processes, potentials, and limitations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(6), 942-958. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1969637
Ahern-Dodson, J., & Reisinger, D. (2017). Moving beyond corrective feedback: (Re)engaging with student writing in L2 through audio response. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(1), 129-152. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/journalrw/vol3/iss1/6
Al-Olimat, S. I., & AbuSeileek, A. F. (2015). Using computer-mediated corrective feedback modes in developing students’ writing performance. Teaching English with Technology, 15(3), 3-30. http://www.tewtjournal.org/
Alias, N. R., Hasim, Z., Sauffi, K. M., & Bencharif, T. N. (2024). The effectiveness of online feedback and automated writing feedback in improving writing: A systematic literature review. Asian Journal of Research in Education and Social Sciences, 6(2), 900-912. https://doi.org/10.55057/ajress.2024.6.2.81
Althoubiti, N. (2021). A comparative study of conventional feedback on EFL academic writing and computer-mediated feedback among Saudi teachers and university students. Critical Studies in Languages and Literature, 2(1), 48-67. https://doi.org/10.5455/CSLL.1547925750
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Walker, D. A. (2019). Introduction to research in education (10th ed.). Cengage.
Atar Sharghi, N., Jahangardi, K., & Ahmadkhan Beigi, S. (2022). The effect of computer-mediated corrective feedback on EFL writing skill achievement and attitude. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 11(2), 125-144. https://doi.org/10.30479/jtpsol.2023.18191.1624
Banihashem, S. K., Kerman, N. T., Noroozi, O., Moon, J., & Drachsler, H. (2024). Feedback sources in essay writing: Peer-generated or AI-generated feedback? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00455-4
Chacón-Beltrán, R., & Echitchi, R. (2022). Improving lexical errors in EFL writing by using software-mediated corrective feedback. Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica de Las Lenguas Extranjeras, 37(1), 275-290. https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi37.20847
Cheng, G. (2017). The impact of online automated feedback on students’ reflective journal writing in an EFL course. The Internet and Higher Education, 34(3), 18-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.04.002
Chong, S. W., & Reinders, H. (2022). Autonomy of English language learners: A scoping review of research and practice. Language Teaching Research, 29(2), 607-632. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221075812
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing Grounded Theory (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Crosthwaite, P., Ningrum, S., & Lee, I. (2022). Research trends in L2 written corrective feedback: A bibliometric analysis of three decades of Scopus-indexed research on L2 WCF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 58(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSLW.2022.100934
Cunningham, K. J. (2019). Student perceptions and use of technology-mediated text and screencast feedback in ESL writing. Computers and Composition, 52(8), 222-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPCOM.2019.02.003
Delante, N. L. (2017). Perceived impact of online written feedback on students’ writing and learning: A reflection. Reflective Practice, 18(6), 772-804. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2017.1351351
Dewi, A. K., Putri, E. D., & Widiawati, U. (2023). Conventional written corrective feedback for EFL learners’ writing skill enhancement. International Journal of Educational Best Practices, 7(2), 172-188. https://doi.org/10.32851/ijebp.v7n2.p172-188
Gao, J., & Ma, S. (2020). Instructor feedback on free writing and automated corrective feedback in drills: Intensity and efficacy. Language Teaching Research, 26(5), 986-1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820915337
Guo, K., Pan, M., Li, Y., & Lai, C. (2024). Effects of an AI-supported approach to peer feedback on university EFL students’ feedback quality and writing ability. The Internet and Higher Education, 63(7), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IHEDUC.2024.100962
Han, T., & Sari, E. (2024). An investigation on the use of automated feedback in Turkish EFL students’ writing classes. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(4), 961-985. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2067179
He, S., Sénécal, A. M., Stansfield, L., & Suvorov, R. (2024). A scoping review of research on second language test preparation. Language Testing, 42(1), 11-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322241249754
Hoang, G. T. L. (2022). Feedback precision and learners’ responses: A study into ETS criterion automated corrective feedback in EFL writing classrooms. The JALT CALL Journal, 18(3), 444-467. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v18n3.764
Hojeij, Z., & Ayber, P. O. (2022). Effectiveness of using digital feedback on EFL student writing skills. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 12(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.291111
Imsa-ard, P., & Barrot, J. S. (2024). Combining multimodal technology-mediated and peer feedback: Effects on second language (L2) learners’ complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) in writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2443770
Jiang, L., & Yu, S. (2022). Appropriating automated feedback in L2 writing: Experiences of Chinese EFL student writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(7), 1329-1353. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1799824
Kataoka, Y., Thamrin, A. H., Van Meter, R., Murai, J., & Kataoka, K. (2023). Investigating the effect of computer-mediated feedback via an LMS integration in a large-scale Japanese-speaking class. Education and Information Technologies, 28(2), 1957-1986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11262-7
Khalil, H., Jia, R., Moraes, E. B., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., Peters, M., Asran, A., Godfrey, C. M., Tricco, A., Pollock, D., & Evans, C. (2025). Scoping reviews and their role in identifying research priorities. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 181(5), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111712
Kim, V. (2018). Technology-enhanced feedback on student writing in the English-medium instruction classroom. English Teaching, 73(4), 29-53. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.73.4.201812.29
Kim, Y., & Emeliyanova, L. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 234-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406
Kjærgaard, H. W. (2018). Technology-mediated written corrective feedback in the Danish lower secondary classroom Aarhus University].
Koltovskaia, S. (2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450
Lachner, A., Burkhart, C., & Nückles, M. (2017). Formative computer-based feedback in the university classroom: Specific concept maps scaffold students’ writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 72(3), 459-469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.008
Lee, J. W., & Yoon, K. O. (2020). Effects of written corrective feedback on the use of the English indefinite article in EFL learners’ writing. English Teaching, 75(2), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.75.2.202006.21
Link, S., Mehrzad, M., & Rahimi, M. (2020). Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 605-634. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323
Macaro, E. (2019). Systematic reviews in applied linguistics. In The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 230-239). Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367824471-20
Noordin, N., & Khojasteh, L. (2021). The effects of electronic feedback on medical university students’ writing performance. International Journal of Higher Education, 10(4), 124-134. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n4p124
Pack, A., Hartshorn, K. J., Escalante, J., & Gillette, N. (2025). How well can GenAI (GPT-4) provide written corrective feedback on English-language learners’ writing? International Journal of English for Academic Purposes: Research and Practice, 5(1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.3828/ijeap.2025.2
Palioura, M., & Sapounidis, T. (2024). Storytelling and educational robotics: A scoping review (2004–2024). Computers & Education, 225(2), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105186
Papin, K., & Michaud, G. (2024). Learners’ perceptions of synchronous written corrective feedback in videoconferenced collaborative writing. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 49(3), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt28511
Peungcharoenkun, T., & Waluyo, B. (2024). Writing pedagogy in higher education: The efficacy of mediating feedback with technology. Reading & Writing, 15(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.4102/rw.v15i1.487
Pham, H. T. P. (2022). Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: Student feedback and revision in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2112-2147. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1868530
Pillay, J. (2022). A scoping review of learners’ perceptions on what influences teachers’ approaches to teaching comprehensive sexuality education in South African schools. Educational Research for Social Change, 11(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.17159/2221-4070/2022/v11i1a1
Ranalli, J., & Yamashita, T. (2022). Automated written corrective feedback: Error-correction performance and timing of delivery. Language Learning & Technology, 26(1), 1-25. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/73465
Reinders, H., Wang Chong, S., & Liu, Q. (2025). Conceptualizations of and research on language teacher leadership: A scoping review. TESOL Journal, 16(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.70007
Shen, C., Shi, P., Guo, J., Xu, S., & Tian, J. (2023). From process to product: Writing engagement and performance of EFL learners under computer-generated feedback instruction. Frontiers in Psychology, 14(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1258286
Sherafati, N., Largani, F. M., & Amini, S. (2020). Exploring the effect of computer-mediated teacher feedback on the writing achievement of Iranian EFL learners: Does motivation count? Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4591-4613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10177-5
Sherafati, N., & Mahmoudi Largani, F. (2023). The potentiality of computer-based feedback in fostering EFL learners’ writing performance, self-regulation ability, and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Computers in Education, 10(1), 27-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00221-3
Shi, H., & Aryadoust, V. (2024). A systematic review of AI-based automated written feedback research. ReCALL, 36(2), 187-209. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344023000265
Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 517-538. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.993400
Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12317
Strobl, C., Ailhaud, E., Benetos, K., Devitt, A., Kruse, O., Proske, A., & Rapp, C. (2019). Digital support for academic writing: A review of technologies and pedagogies. Computers & Education, 131(4), 33-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2018.12.005
Tambunan, A. R. S., Andayani, W., Sari, W. S., & Lubis, F. K. (2022). Investigating EFL students’ linguistic problems using Grammarly as automated writing evaluation feedback. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v12i1.46428
Valero Haro, A., Omid, N., Harm, J. A. B., Martin, M., & Banihashem, S. K. (2024). How does the type of online peer feedback influence feedback quality, argumentative essay writing quality, and domain-specific learning? Interactive Learning Environments, 32(9), 5459-5478. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2215822
Weisleder, A., Friend, M., Sin, A., Tsui, M., & Marchman, V. A. (2024). Using parent report to measure vocabulary in young bilingual children: A scoping review. Language Learning, 74(2), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12617
Wıhastyanang, W. D., Kusumanıngrum, S. R., Latıef, M. A., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2020). Impacts of providing online teacher and peer feedback on students’ writing performance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 178-189. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.728157
Yamashita, T. (2021). Corrective feedback in computer-mediated collaborative writing and revision contributions. Language Learning & Technology, 25(2), 75-93. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/73434
Zhang, L. J., & Cheng, X. (2021). Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 54(6), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JEAP.2021.101043
Zhu, M., Liu, O. L., & Lee, H. S. (2020). The effect of automated feedback on revision behavior and learning gains in formative assessment of scientific argument writing. Computers & Education, 143(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103668 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 284 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 183 |
||
