Foreign Language Vocabulary Learning: Interactive Whiteboard-Mediated vs. Paper-Based Corrective Feedback

Document Type : Research article

Authors

1 MA, English Language Department, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, English Language Department, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, English Language Department, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran.

Abstract

This study sought to probe the efficacy of interactive whiteboard-mediated corrective feedback versus conventional corrective feedback for Iranian EFL learners’ target language vocabulary development. To this end, a sample of 80 EFL learners at the intermediate proficiency level was selected based on scores obtained from a language proficiency test. The participants were then randomly divided into three groups: two experimental and one control. The first experimental group (n = 30) was taught the target vocabulary items while receiving interactive whiteboard-mediated corrective feedback, and the second experimental group (n = 25) was taught the target vocabulary items while receiving conventional corrective feedback; the control group was taught the target words receiving no feedback of either kind. The ANOVA test results indicated that conventional corrective feedback slightly improved target vocabulary learning by the participants. Interactive whiteboard-mediated corrective feedback, however, proved to be significantly effective in this respect. The findings can be said to provide innovative insights into the area of CALL and new techniques in L2 pedagogy.

Keywords

References

  1. Abraham, L. (2008). Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 199-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220802090246
  2. AbuSeileek, A., & Abualsha’r, A. (2014). Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners’ writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 76-95. https://doi:10.1111/jcal.12004
  3. Adigüzel, T., Capraro, R. M., & Wilson, V. L.  (2011). An examination of teacher acceptance of handheld computers. International Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 12-27. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ958994.pdf
  4. Ahmadi, M. R. (2018). The use of technology in English language learning: A literature review. International Journal of Research in English Education (IJREE), 3(2), 115-125. https://ijreeonline.com/article-1-120-en.pdf
  5. Albaaly, E., & Higgin, S. (2012). The impact of interactive whiteboard technology on medical students’ achievement in ESL essay writing: An early study in Egypt. The Language Learning Journal, 2(47), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2010.543953
  6. Allen, V. F. (1983). Techniques in teaching vocabulary. Oxford University Press.
  7. Alshaikhi, M. H. (2017). Investigating teachers’ attitudes towards the effectiveness of using interactive whiteboards when teaching English as a foreign language. Journal of Modern Education Review, 7(3), 210-219. http://www.academicstar.us/
  8. Amiri, R., & Sharifi, M. (2014). The influence of using interactive whiteboard on writings of EFL students regarding adverbs. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 242-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.413
  9. Amolo, S., & Dees, E. (2007). The influence of interactive whiteboards on fifth-grade student perceptions and learning experiences. Action Research Exchange, 6(1), 1-9. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/189470194.pdf
  10. Bacon, D. (2011). The interactive whiteboard as a force for pedagogic change. Information Technology in Education Journal, 15-18.
  11. Barani, G. (2013). The impact of computer assisted language learning (CALL) on vocabulary achievement of Iranian university students EFL learners. International Journal of Basic Science & Applied Research, 2(5), 531-537. https://www.researchgate.net/deref/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DBarani%2C%2BGH.%2B%282013
  12. Barcroft, J. (2004). Effects of sentence writing in second language lexical acquisition. Second Language Research, 20(4), 303-334. https://doi.org/10.1191%2F0267658304sr233oa
  13. Basoglu, E. B., & Akdemir, O. (2010). A comparison of undergraduate students’ English vocabulary learning: Using mobile phones and flash cards. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3), 1-7.         https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ898010.pdf
  14. Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.14507/EPAA.V8N51.2000
  15. BECTA (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/wtrs_whiteboards.pdf
  16. Beeland, W. D. Jr. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help? Annual Conference of the Association of Information Technology for Teaching Education, Trinity College, Dublin.          http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/research/international_research/usa/beeland_am.pdf
  17. Brown, S. (2009). Interactive whiteboards in education. JISC Technologies Centre, Joint Information Systems Committee. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Interactivewhiteboards.pdf
  18. Bull, S. (2000). Focusing on feedback. In E. Broady (Ed.), Second language writing in a computer environment (pp. 157-175). CILT.
  19. Caws, C. (2006). Assessing group interactions online: Students’ perspectives. Journal of Learning Design, 1(3), 19-28. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1066482.pdf
  20. Coady, J., Magoto, J., Hubbard, P., Graney, J., & Mokhtari, K. (1993). High frequency vocabulary and reading proficiency in ESL readers. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 217-228). Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  21. Cojocnean, D. M. (2015). The vocabulary learning behavior of Romanian high school students in a digital context. University of Exeter. https://core.ac.uk/reader/43095640
  22. Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the internet. Cambridge University Press.
  23. Dashtestani, S. R. (2019). Teaching EFL with interactive whiteboards: Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? Journal of Language Horizons, 3(1), 207-224. https://dx.doi.org/10.22051/lghor.2019.26689.1139
  24. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141
  25. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology 14(3), 51-71. http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num3/elolaoskoz.pdf
  26. Ertan, Y., Yucel, E., Kara, E., & Karabiyik, L. (2011). The effects of interactive whiteboard usage on students’ learning level and application in financial markets courses. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 12(3), 23-35.          https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/156032
  27. Faghih, E., & Hosseini, S. B. (2012). Asynchronous computer-mediated corrective feedback and the correct use of definite/indefinite articles. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 9(1), 21-36. https://itdl.org/Journal/Jan_12/Jan_12.pdf
  28. Gatlin, M. (2007). The impact of the interactive whiteboard on student achievement [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Georgia, Athens.
  29. http://athenaeum.libs.uga.edu
  30. Ghaniabadi, S., Amirian, S. M. R., Khalilabad, M. H., & Nafchi, A. M. (2016). The effect of multimedia texts presented on interactive whiteboards on Iranian high school EFL learners’ reading comprehension performance. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 3(1), 430-446. http://www.ijhcs.com/index
  31. Ghazi, S., & Zamanian, M. (2019). The influence of asynchronous computer-mediated versus conventional corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 8(1), 169-181.  http://jslte.iaushiraz.ac.ir/article_684620_5221df3c95fcab9501241d8cce09bb47.pdf
  32. Ghufron, M. A. (2019). Exploring an automated feedback program ‘Grammarly’ and teacher corrective feedback in EFL writing assessment: Modern vs. traditional assessment. In D. Mulyadi, R. Rahim, S. Aimah, Y. Nugraheni, M. Ifadah, & H. D., Santoso (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd English language and literature international conference, ELLiC, 27th April 2019. (pp. 307-315). EAI. https://doi.org/10.4108/EAI.27-4-2019.2285308
  33. Groot, P. J. M. (2000). Computer assisted second language vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 60-81. http://llt.msu.edu/%20vol4num1/groot/
  34. Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 102-117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00118.x
  35. Han, Z. H. (2001). Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals 34(6), 582-599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02105.x
  36. Henderson, C. (2019). The effect of feedback timing on L2 Spanish vocabulary acquisition in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Teaching Research, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819832907
  37. Ho, M., & Savignon, S. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269-290. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24147912
  38. Hodge, S., & Anderson, B. (2007). Teaching and learning with an interactive white board: A teacher's journey. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 271-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880701511123
  39. Hulstijn, J. (2000). The use of computer technology in experimental studies of second language acquisition: A survey of some techniques and some ongoing studies. Language Learning & Technology, 3(2), 32-43. http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num2/hulstijn/index.html
  40. Katwibun, H. (2013). Using an interactive whiteboard in vocabulary teaching. Procedia – social and behavioral sciences, 116, 674-678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.278
  41. Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). Analyzing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 61-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00244.x
  42. Kim, Y., Choi, B., Yun, H., Kim, B., & Choi, S. (2020). Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912354
  43. Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307
  44. Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: A developmental study.  Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield. http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards.htm
  45. Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information Technologies, 13(4), 291-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-008-9070-z
  46. Loewen, S. (2012). The role of feedback. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 24-40). Routledge.
  47. Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220600803311
  48. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press.
  49. Long, M. H. (2006). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Problems in SLA (pp. 75-116). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  50. Lu, F. L., (2010). English learners' incidental vocabulary acquisition in the video-based CALL program. Asian EFL Journal, 12(4), 51-66. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/English-Learners-%E2%80%99-Incidental-Vocabulary-in-the-Lin/bbeb7ee19e31932c3bb125c39bcd381feea729ee
  51. Lyster, R. (1998a). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51-81. https//doi.org/10.1017/S027226319800103X
  52. Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183-218.
  53. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
  54. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40. https//doi.org/ 10.1017/S0261444812000365
  55. Ma, Q., & Kelly, P. (2006). Computer assisted vocabulary learning: Design and evaluation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 15-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220600803998
  56. McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford University Press.
  57. Mechling, L., Gast, D., & Krupa, K. (2007). Impact of smart board technology: An investigation of sight word reading and observational learning. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 37(10), 1869-1882. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0361-9
  58. Moss, G., Carrey, J., Levaaic, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A., & Castle, F. (2007). The interactive whiteboards pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the school’s whiteboard expansion (SWE) project: London challenge. Institute of Education, University of London.   https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10022066/1/Moss2007whiteboardsRR816.pdf
  59. Nakata, T. (2015).  Effects of feedback timing on second language vocabulary learning: Does delaying feedback increase learning? Language Teaching Research, 19(4), 416-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541721
  60. Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759
  61. Nation, P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59-82.  https://www.lextutor.ca/cover/papers/nation_2006.pdf
  62. Oberg, A. (2011). Comparison of the effectiveness of a CALL-based approach and a card-based approach to vocabulary acquisition and retention. CALICO Journal, 29(1), 118-144. https://journal.equinoxpub.com/Calico/article/download/17080/19555
  63. Pan, Y. (2010). The effect of teacher error feedback on the accuracy of EFL student writing. TEFLIN Journal, 21(1), 57-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v21i1/57-77
  64. Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patters of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-95. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588241
  65. Rabiee, M. (2010). Facilitating learning to gather in Iranian context: Three collaborative oral feedback models in EFL writing classes. Sino-US English Teaching, 7(3), 10-22. https://www.davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/55a7797332a74.pdf
  66. Rassaei, E. (2019). Computer-mediated text-based and audio-based corrective feedback, perceptual style and L2 development. System, 82, 97-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.03.004
  67. Razagifard, P., & Rahimpour, M. (2010). The effect of computer mediated corrective feedback on the development of second language learners’ grammar. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning 7(5). 11-30. http://itdl.org/Journal/May_2010/article2002.htm
  68. Razagifard, P., & Razzaghifard, V. (2011). Corrective feedback in a computer-mediated communicative context and the development of second language grammar. Teaching English with Technology, 11(2), 1-17.            http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-9a758c3e-8f18-4945-8e7b-d7a8cecf16d7
  69. Sachs, R., & Suh, B. R. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 199-227).  Oxford University Press.
  70. Sarré, C., Grosbois, M., & Brudermann, C. (2019). Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: Impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1635164
  71. Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96-120. http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/sauro.pdf
  72. Schmid, E., C. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1553-1568.   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.005
  73. Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
  74. Selwyn N. (2003). ICT in non-formal youth and adult education: Defining territory. OECD/NCAL International roundtable. http://www.literacy.org/ICTconf/OECD_Selwy n_final.pdf
  75. Seiffedin, A. H., & El-Sakka, S. M.  F. (2017). The impact of direct-indirect corrective feedback on EFL students’ writing accuracy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(3), 166-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0703.02
  76. Shams, N., & Dabaghi, A. (2014). Iranian EFL learners’ L2 reading comprehension: The effect of online annotations via interactive whiteboards. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 6(14), 37-56.  https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_3321_6cfae049799c952431aa32715f2a18e9.pdf
  77. Shaqaqi, M., & Soleimani, H. (2018). Effects of asynchronous and conventional paper-and-pen metalinguistic feedback on L2 learners' use of verb tense. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 5(3), 55-72.     https://jmrels.journals.ikiu.ac.ir/article_1680_9eacb35cd225e9ba3faef4d34daecd1a.pdf
  78. Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361-392.  https://doi.org/10.1191%2F1362168806lr203oa
  79. Sheen, Y. (2007).  The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
  80. Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkle (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593-610). Routledge. https://moodle.phooe.at/pluginfile.php/144864/mod_resource/content/1/Hinkel_2011_Handbook_of_Research_in_SLA_2.pdf#page=612
  81. research in second language teaching and learning
  82. Shen, C., & Chuang, H. (2009). An investigation on user communication behavior in an interactive whiteboard technology environment. WSEAS Transactions on Communications, 8(1), 184-195. http://www.wseas.us/e-library/transactions/communications/2009/31-815.pdf
  83. Sippel, L. (2019). The impact of peer corrective feedback on vocabulary development. Foreign Language Annals, 52(3), 595-611. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12416
  84. Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just "lipstick"? Computers & Education, 51(3), 1321-1341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.12.006
  85. Souhila, B., & Khadidja, M. M. (2013). We need change! The interactive whiteboard in the EFL context. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(3), 379-384. http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/ajis.2013.v2n3p379
  86. Somyürek, S., Atasoy, B., & Özdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: What makes a board smart. Computers & Education, 53(2), 368-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.012
  87. SMART Technologies Inc. (2006). Interactive whiteboards and learning improving student learning outcomes and streamlining lesson planning. http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/education/pdf/interactivewhiteboardsandlearning.pdf
  88. Swan, K., Schenker, J. & Kratcoski, A. (2008). The effects of the use of interactive whiteboards on student achievement. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2008--world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (pp. 3290-3297). VieAssociation for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).  https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/28842/
  89. Tafazoli, D., Nosratzadeh, H., & Hosseini, N. (2014). Computer-mediated corrective feedback in ESP courses: Reducing grammatical errors via Email. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136(9), 355-359.            http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.341
  90. Torff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students' self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(2), 379-383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.019
  91. Turel, Y. K. (2011). An interactive whiteboard student survey: Development, validity and reliability. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2441-2450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.005
  92. Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). The visual helps me understand the complicated things: Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 851-867. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00508.x
  93. Ware, P. D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. (pp. 105-122). Cambridge University Press.         https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ware,+P.+D.,+%26+Warschauer,+M.+(2006).&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
  94. Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 84-96.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00699.x
  95. Yeh, S., & Lo, J. (2009). Using online annotations to support error correction and corrective feedback. Computers & Education, 52(4), 882-892. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.014
  96. Yun, J. (2011). The effects of hypertext glosses on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(1), 39-58.   https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.523285

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics