KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1

EFL Yazma Bağlamında Yüz Yüze ve Dijital Geribildirimin Etkileri: İki Türk Devlet Üniversitesinin Karşılaştırılması

The Effects of Face-to-Face vs. Digital Feedback in an EFL Writing Context: Comparison of Two Turkish State Universities

Haticetül Kübra Er(ERZURUM TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-5995-6224
Emel Küçükali(DOKUZ EYLUL UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-5162-6914
Sayfa
389–411
Yayın Tarihi
2024-03-15
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgular hem dijital hem de yüz yüze geri bildirimin öğrencilerin yazma becerileri üzerinde önemli ölçüde olumlu bir etkiye sahip olduğunu, ancak yüz yüze geri bildirimin dijital geri bildirimden önemli ölçüde daha etkili olduğunu göstermiştir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Mevcut araştırma, yüz yüze ve dijital/yazılı geri bildirimin öğrencilerin İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenme bağlamında yazma becerileri üzerindeki etkilerini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır; Katılımcılar Türkiye'deki iki devlet üniversitesinden Yabancı Diller Yüksekokulu'nda (Hazırlık Okulu) hedef dil seviyesi B2 olan üniversite öğrencileridir (n:38).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bulgular hem dijital hem de yüz yüze geri bildirimin öğrencilerin yazma becerileri üzerinde önemli ölçüde olumlu bir etkiye sahip olduğunu, ancak yüz yüze geri bildirimin dijital geri bildirimden önemli ölçüde daha etkili olduğunu göstermiştir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Görüşme bulguları, nicel bulgularla uyumluydu ve yüz yüze geri bildirimin, öğrenciler için iletişim, müzakere, anında açıklama ve daha iyi bir öğrenme bağlamı sağladığı için dijital geri bildirimden daha etkili bulunduğunu ortaya çıkardı.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:EFL Yazma · Yüz yüze Geri bildirim · Dijital Geri bildirim

Özet

Mevcut araştırma, yüz yüze ve dijital/yazılı geri bildirimin öğrencilerin İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenme bağlamında yazma becerileri üzerindeki etkilerini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır; Katılımcılar Türkiye'deki iki devlet üniversitesinden Yabancı Diller Yüksekokulu'nda (Hazırlık Okulu) hedef dil seviyesi B2 olan üniversite öğrencileridir (n:38). Nicel veriler, ‘Opinion Essay’ yazılarının ön test ve son test puanlarından toplanmıştır. Deney grubu, basılı kağıtların yüz yüze/sözlü geri bildirimine maruz kalırken, karşılaştırma grubu, elektronik kopya kağıtların dijital/yazılı geri bildirimine maruz bırakıldı. Nitel veriler, öğrencilerin yüz yüze ve dijital geri bildirim algılarını ortaya çıkaran yazılı görüşmelerden toplanmıştır. Nicel veriler, verilerin normal dağılmaması nedeniyle Mann-Whitney U testi ve Wilcoxon S-R testi ile analiz edildi. Nitel veriler, CLAN (Computerized Language Analysis) Programı kullanılarak İçerik Analizi yoluyla çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular hem dijital hem de yüz yüze geri bildirimin öğrencilerin yazma becerileri üzerinde önemli ölçüde olumlu bir etkiye sahip olduğunu, ancak yüz yüze geri bildirimin dijital geri bildirimden önemli ölçüde daha etkili olduğunu göstermiştir. Görüşme bulguları, nicel bulgularla uyumluydu ve yüz yüze geri bildirimin, öğrenciler için iletişim, müzakere, anında açıklama ve daha iyi bir öğrenme bağlamı sağladığı için dijital geri bildirimden daha etkili bulunduğunu ortaya çıkardı.

Abstract

The current research aims to explore the effects of Face to Face vs. Digital/Written Feedback on students' writing skills in an EFL Context; The participants are university students (N:38) from two state Turkish universities, at the School of Foreign Languages (Preparatory School) with a target language level of B2. The quantitative data was collected from the pre-test and post-test scores of opinion essay writings. The experimental group was exposed to face-to-face/oral feedback of hard copy papers, while the comparison group was exposed to digital/written feedback of soft copy papers. The qualitative data was collected from written interviews eliciting students’ perceptions of face-to-face and digital feedback. Quantitative data was analyzed through The Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon S-R test due to non-normal data distribution. The qualitative data was analyzed via Content Analysis by using CLAN (Computerized Language Analysis) Program. The findings indicated that both digital and face-to-face feedback had a significantly positive effect on students’ writing skills, however, face-to-face feedback was significantly more effective than digital feedback. The interview findings were in line with the quantitative findings and revealed that Face to face feedback was found more effective than digital feedback because it provides communication, negotiation, immediate clarification and a better learning context for students.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Er, H. K., Küçükali, E. (2024). EFL Yazma Bağlamında Yüz Yüze ve Dijital Geribildirimin Etkileri: İki Türk Devlet Üniversitesinin Karşılaştırılması. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1, 389–411. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2024..-1340007

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (54)

  1. AbuSeileek, A., & Abualsha'r, A. (2014). Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners' writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 76-95.
  2. Ali, A. D. (2016). Effectiveness of using feedback on EFL students’ writing and perception. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 106. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p106
  3. Aslam, M. Z., Barzani, S. H., Aslam, T., & Rasool, U. (2021). Teachers and students’ perceptions towards online ESL classrooms during COVID-19: An empirical study in North Cyprus. Journal of Asia TEFL, 18(4), 1423-1431. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2021.18.4.22.1423
  4. Atwater, C., Borup, J., Baker, R., & West, R. E. (2017). Student perceptions of video communication in an online sport and recreation studies graduate course. Sport Management Education Journal, 11(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2016-0002
  5. Baran, E., Correia, A.P. & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32(3), 421-439.
  6. Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. ASCD.
  7. Borup, J., West, R. E., & Thomas, R. (2015). The impact of text versus video communication on instructor feedback in blended courses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9367-8
  8. Cavaleri, Michelle, Kawaguchi, Satomi, Di Biase, Bruno, & Power, Clare. (2019). How recorded audio-visual feedback can improve academic language support. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 16(4), 1–19. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol16/iss4/6
  9. Chang, C., Kelly, J. C., Satar, H. M., & Strobl, C. (2017). Electronic feedback on second language writing: A retrospective and prospective essay on multimodality, Writing & Pedagogy, 9(3), 05– 428. https://doi.org/10.1 558/wap.32515
  10. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web- based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004
  11. Chong S. W. (2019). College students’ perception of e-feedback: a grounded theory perspective, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(7), 1090-1105, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1572067
  12. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. Routledge. Denton, D. W. (2014). Using screen capture feedback to improve academic performance. TechTrends, 58(6), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0803-0
  13. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.04.002
  14. Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. System, 46, 80–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.011
  15. Espasa, A., Guasch, T., Mayordomo, R. M., & Carless, D. (2018). A Dialogic Feedback Index measuring key aspects of feedback processes in online learning environments. HigherEducation Research & Development, 37(3), 499–513
  16. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  17. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed). McGraw-Hill.
  18. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (2014). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. Routledge Greasley, P. (2008). Quantitative data analysis using SPSS: an introduction for health and social sciences. Buckingham.
  19. Guasch, T., Espasa, A., Alvarez, I. M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Effects of feedback on collaborative writing in an online learning environment. Distance Education, 34(3), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835772
  20. Hattie & Timperley (2007). The Power of Feedback, Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  21. Henderson, M., Ryan, T., & Phillips, M. (2019). e challenges of feedback in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1237-1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1599815
  22. Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. National Council of Teachers of English.
  23. Hounsell, D. (2021). Feedback in postgraduate online learning: Perspectives and practices. In Online Postgraduate Education in a Postdigital World (pp. 39-62). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77673-2_3
  24. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S0261444806003399
  25. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press.
  26. Johnson, W. F., Stellmack, M. A., & Barthel, A. L. (2019). Format of instructor feedback on student writing assignments affects feedback quality and student performance. Teaching of Psychology, 46(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318816131
  27. Küçükali, E. (2017). The effect of oral vs. written feedback in EFL writing. Journal of applied linguistics and language research, 4(7), 47-67.
  28. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 159–174.
  29. Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., & Biemans, H. J. A. (2019). How does online peer feedback improve argumentative essay writing and learning? Innovations in Education and Teaching International. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1687005
  30. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00447.x
  31. Link, S., Mehrzad, M., & Rahimi, M. (2020). Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement. Computer-Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323
  32. Lunt, T., & Curran, J. (2010). Are you listening, please? e advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(7), 759–769. http://dx.doi.org/10.1 080/02602930902977772
  33. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. transcription format and programs (Vol. 3). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  34. Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage publications. McCabe, J., Doerflinger, A., & Fox, R. (2011). Student and faculty perceptions of E-feedback. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311411794
  35. McCarthy, J. (2015). Evaluating written, audio and video feedback in higher education summative assessment tasks. Issues in Educational Research, 25(2), 153–169.
  36. McGrath, A., & Atkinson-Leadbeater, K. (2016). Instructor comments on student writing: Learner response to electronic written feedback. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 8, 1–16.
  37. Mohamadi, Z. (2018). Comparative effect of online summative and formative assessment on EFL student writing ability. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.02.003
  38. Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2019). The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(5), 548–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1431143
  39. Poquet, O. et al. (2018). Social Presence in Massive Open Online Courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 19(3)
  40. Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents.
  41. Rezalou, A. (2020). Student teachers’ beliefs about corrective feedback. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (41), 416-430.
  42. Saeed, M. A., & Al Qunayeer, H. S. (2020). Exploring teacher interactive efeedback on students’ writing through Google Docs: factors promoting interactivity and potential for learning. e Language Learning Journal, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1786711
  43. Silva, M. L. (2012). Camtasia in the classroom: Student attitudes and preferences for video commentary or Microsoft word comments during the revision process. Computers and Composition, 29(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2011.12.001
  44. Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/357622
  45. Steele, J., & Holbeck, R. (2018). Five elements that impact quality feedback in the online asynchronous classroom. Journal of Educators Online, 15(3), n3. https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2018.15.3.10
  46. Thompson, R., & Lee, M. J. (2012). Talking with students through screencasting: Experimentations with video feedback to improve student learning. The Journal of Interactive Technology & Pedagogy, 1(1), 1–16.
  47. Urdan, T. C. (2016). Statistics in plain English. Routledge.
  48. Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C. W., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475–511. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314564881
  49. Van der Kleij, Fabienne & Lipnevich, Anastasiya. (2021). Student perceptions of assessment feedback: a critical scoping review and call for research. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. 33.345-373 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09331-x
  50. Vattøy, K. D., & Smith, K. (2019). Students’ perceptions of teachers’ feedback practice in teaching English as a foreign language. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 260-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.024
  51. Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Fam Med, 37(5), 360–363.
  52. Yuan, J. and Kim, C. (2015) Effective Feedback Design Using Free Technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52, 408-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115571929
  53. West, J., & Turner, W. (2016). Enhancing the assessment experience: Improving student perceptions, engagement and understanding using online video feedback. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(4), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.1003954
  54. Wei, L., & Moyer, M. G. (Eds.). (2008). The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism. Blackwell Pub.