European Journal of English Language Teaching
ISSN: 2501-7136
ISSN-L: 2501-7136
Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu
Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.495361
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES
WITH CALL ON EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING ACCURACY
Fatemeh Soltanpour1i,
Mohammadreza Valizadeh2,
English Department, Kar Higher Education Institute,
1
PO Box 1571, Qazvin, Iran
English Department, Faculty of Foreign Languages,
2
Gazi University, PO Box 06500, Ankara, Turkey
Abstract:
The aims of this mixed-method action research were: (1) to investigate the effect of
feedback provided by MS word processor on EFL learners writing accuracy in the
context of a university in Iran, (2) to explore whether taking reflective notes (henceforth.
RNs) in collaboration with the word processor can modify the effect of such received
feedback, and (3) to find out what the participants thought about each treatment. Two
intact classes (Advanced Writing) were used, but the classes were randomly assigned to
each treatment, called C‚LL with RNs and C‚LL without RNs . There were 50
participants altogether who were B.A. English Translation majors. The Straightforward
Quick Placement & Diagnostic Test was administered to ensure the participants were
homogeneous. Each group received 10-sessions of treatment. Two samples of Task 2 of
General Module of IELTS were used for the pretests and posttests. Each essay was
scored independently by two raters. The final score consisted of the average score of the
two raters. The findings revealed that the feedback provided by MS word processor
improved the students writing accuracy significantly however, the C‚LL with RNs
group outperformed the other one. To collect qualitative data, semi-structured
interviews were conducted with each participant. Generally, the participants in both
groups had positive attitudes towards receiving feedback by the word processor.
Considering the RNs, the participants also had positive attitudes; nonetheless, there
were a few students who didn t like RNs technique, not because they found it useless,
but mainly because of their individual differences.
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved.
© 2015 – 2017 Open Access Publishing Group
22
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
Keywords: MS Word processor, CALL, reflective notes, feedback, writing accuracy,
grammar, mechanics of writing
1. Introduction
As Barkaoui (2007) stated, acquiring L2 writing skill is one of the most difficult skills for
L2 learners because it requires the mastery of a variety of linguistic, cognitive, and
sociocultural competencies. Some scholars, such as Ferris and Roberts (2001) as well as
Hyland and Hyland (2001) stated that, in addition to encouraging L2 learners to engage
in writing frequently, they should be provided with helpful and appropriate feedback
and support, so, as Meng (2013) pointed out, error correction has had a central position
in language teaching. Regardless of the type of feedback that has been offered, some
previous studies have proved written corrective feedback (WCF) can improve accuracy
in second language learners writing performance see, e.g., ‛itchener,
‛itchener &
Knock, 2008; Bitchener & Knock, 2010a; Bitchener & Knock, 2010b; Ellis, Sheen,
Murakami, & Takashima, 2008; Sheen, 2007; Sheen, Wright, & Moldawa, 2009; Van
Beuningen, de Jong, & Kuiken, 2008).
Nevertheless, as the importance of learning second or foreign languages
increased around the world, the number of the L2 learners also increased in classes; as a
result, providing WCF has become a difficult job for L2 teachers because providing the
WCF is very time-consuming (Salteh & Sadeghi, 2012; Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010;
Corpuz, 2011; Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006; Ferris, 1999; 2010; Lyster, 2004; Meng, 2013).
In this regard, some scholars offered that technology can solve this problem and
feedback provided by computers can reduce the teacher s workload Chapelle,
Hegelheimer, 2004; Lavolette, Polio, Kahng, 2015; Pica, 1994). Nonetheless, feedback
given by a computer could not replace the teacher feedback, but it can be a positive
addition to it (Lavolette, et al. 2015).
On the other hand, as most writing instructors frequently observe and Leki,
(1992, as cited in Howrey & Tanner, 2008) wrote, the main challenge writing teachers
face is ensuring that learners transfer knowledge and skills from one composition to the
next, learn from their mistakes, and acquire both writing fluency and accuracy. Despite
teacher instructions and required revisions, learners often show little or no
improvement in their writing. As Howrey and Tanner (2008) argued, learners often do
not learn to take responsibility for their own writing, and often neglect teacher feedback
on final drafts.
On the other hand, research has revealed that computer-assisted language
learning (CALL) could be effective in helping the L2 learners improve their knowledge
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
23
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
of English language and the skills relevant to it, (Blake, 2000; Chatel, 2002; Ghanbari,
Shamsoddini, & Radmehr, 2015; Ghorbani & Marzban, 2013; Hayati, 2005;
Naraghizadeh & Barimani, 2013; Niazi & Pourgharib, 2013; Warschauer & Healey,
1998). Another important issue considering the feedback provided by a computer is
what some approaches to SLA, including the interaction approach, usage-based
approaches, and sociocultural theory, have suggested and that is feedback on language
needs to be immediate to be effective (Polio, 2012).
The efficacy of CALL can be supported by various second language learning
theories. ‚s Warschauer
explained, Vygotsky s sociocultural theory can be
applied to CALL. According to Vygotsky (1981, as cited in Warschauer, 2005), via
mediation or the incorporation of tools or meditational means, the entire flow and
structure of mental functions will alter. Warschauer (2005) mentioned computers as an
example of those meditational means. CALL can also provide interactive learning
environment and collaborative writing in the L2 learning, qualities that are in line with
the social learning aspect of the Vygoskyian s theory Warschauer, Turbee, & Roberts,
as well as Ellis s
perspective of interactionist SL‚ ‛ased on Chapelle
(2005), interaction in CALL takes place not only in face-to-face conversation between
the learners and teacher as well as peers but also electronically over a computer, i.e.,
between the learner and the computer. As Long (1996) and Pica (1994) stated, learning
takes place through learners negotiation of meaning to make connections between form
and meaning.
Furthermore, Li (2000) claimed that CALL can stress the role of social and
affective factors in L2 learning. The affective factor could be in line with the flow theory.
The flow concept was developed by Schiefele and Csikszentmihalyi (1994) as well as
Csikszentmihalyi (1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 1997d, all cited in Egbert, 2005) and was defined
as a psychological state that results in optimal experience. Abbot (2000) commented that
flow experiences may help the L2 learners be more motivated and thus their language
learning can be more effective; such experience might help learners to persevere in their
language studies. Trevino and Webster (1992) noted that computer software can
provide varied, novel, and surprising stimuli
p.
that makes the learners willing to
continue; this feeling could lead to the flow experience. In addition, As Benson (2001)
mentioned, in the case of C‚LL, there is
an assumption that technology can provide
learners with the kinds of support they need in order to develop skills associated with autonomy
(p. 140). Abbott (2000) found contexts that support autonomy create more favorable
conditions for flow than controlled contexts and tasks. As Egbert (2005) indicated,
applying CALL causes the user to perceive a sense of control over the task that is being
done, and as a result, based on Thanasoulas (2000), such sense of control is important to
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
24
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
language learning. Ghani and Deshpande (1994) had also found that computer activities
can support flow because they provide users with both challenge and control.
Moreover, Pennington (2004) as well as Pennington and Brock (1992) (both
sources cited in Levy, 2009) stated that the word processor has become one of the most
widely accepted technologies for writing since the early 1980s. As it facilitates the
flexible manipulation of text, it enables the user to draft and redraft the composition
easily and produce a professional product. Barrass (1995) stated that word-processing
can help the L2 writers writing in all four stages of composition: thinking, planning,
writing, and revising. During the writing process, a word-processor will automatically
format text; may provide a choice of fonts; inserts running heading and page numbers;
may enable one to check spelling, syntax, and grammar; may provide advice on the
choice of words and on the use of words, and may provide a thesaurus. (p. 97)
According to Thomas (2004), word processing programs allow editing and
formatting, spelling, and grammar checking; therefore, as Sergeant (2001) stated, typing
a text word by word may help students remember and improve the knowledge of
words and their spelling as well as the grammatical structures; it may also be more fun
than copying a text using pen and paper. Moreover, Kenning (1996) said that word
processors can be intrinsically supportive of cognitive and metacognitive autonomy
because they encourage their users to consider their compositions critically and try to
make improvements. Since 1980s, some research has been done into the effect of the
word-processor on the writing of the L2 learners and positive satisfactory results have
been revealed (see e.g, Barzegar, Fattahi Bafghi, & Allami, 2011; Bernhardt, Wojahn, &
Edwards, 1989; Darus, Ismail, & Ismail, 2008; Jafarian, Soori, Kafipour, 2012; Lam &
Pennington, 1995; Lee, 2004, Li, 2006; Li & Cumming, 2001; Owston, Murphy, &
Wideman, 1992, 1997).
In addition to the above-mentioned issues, based on the constructivist view of
language learning, students learn in problem-solving environments that challenge their
prior knowledge and encourage them to reflect on the differences between their own
knowledge and that of the course. Such an approach to learning can be applicable in the
composition classroom (Nelson, 2002). According to constructivists, learning always
involves both analyzing and transforming new information O Donoghue & Clarke,
2010). As Duffy and Cunningham (1996, as cited in Callele, 2008) stated, within
constructivist approaches, students are considered active participants in their learning.
Students need to be involved in reviewing content in a variety of ways and at different
times to acquire understanding of a subject or lesson, and teachers are responsible for
providing them with such opportunities (Driscoll, 1994, as cited in Razak & Asmawi,
2004). Thus, because learners are in charge and control of what, when, and how they
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
25
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
learn (Driscoll, 2000; Hannafin, 1992, as cited in Callele, 2008), they need to be aware of
their own thinking and learning processes (Driscoll, 1994, as cited in Razak & Asmawi,
2004). When learners are in charge and control of their learning (Gilbert, 1989, as cited
in Callele, 2008), they take responsibility for the quality of it as well. The classroom
becomes learner-oriented and the student understands which problems to solve and in
what order; as a result, the learners will understand clearly why the information and
skills should be learned (Driscoll, 2000, as cited in Callele, 2008). In learning writing,
the solving of one problem often reveals another, and the writing process continues until the
learners become satisfied with their learning. Although the teachers have some specific
learning objectives in their minds, they should work as a tour-guide, as suggested by
Driscoll
, just pointing out the sights that must be seen and facilitating the learning
process (as cited in Callele, 2008, p. 10).
Therefore, it is believed that reflective learning is a crucial factor in learner
academic development; thus, there has been a growing interest in this issue in the field
of English language teaching (ELT) (Brockbank & McGill, 1998; Cohen, Ritter, &
Haynes, 2007; Moon, 1999). Reflective learning enables learners to explore inwards not
only within themselves but also within the courses they have been offered to access
information and inspiration about their efforts in the classroom
Murphy,
, p.
. It
also helps them move from a level where they may be guided largely by impulse,
intuition or routine, to a level where their actions are guided by reflection and critical
thinking
Farrell,
, p.
. Therefore, reflective learning enables EFL learners to think
critically about their successes and failures in a realistic context.
El-Gharmy, 2015). Without
reflection, a check, or review, the same mistakes are often repeated in their later
compositions (Howrey & Tanner, 2008).
According to Zubizarreta (2009), learners need to learn from their previous
writing experiences through reflection and development of critical writing skills. On the
other hand, as Zubizarreta argued, Reflection does not come naturally or easily to many
students. … Students must have opportunities to practice reflection in class and must have
generous encouragement on their work in progress. (p. 172). Consequently, the effect of
reflection on writing performance has been explored by some researchers using some
techniques such as reflective learning portfolios (see e.g., Hemmati & Soltanpour, 2012;
Sabooni & Salehi, 2015) as well as journal writing (see e.g., Alijani & Barjesteh, 2016;
Duppenthaler, 2004; Lew & Schmidt, 2011; Minjong, 1997; Razak & Asmawi, 2004;
Salem, 2007; Yoshihara, 2008).
In this study, in light of the above-mentioned theories and issues, the researchers
decided to explore the effect of keeping reflective notes (RNs) in addition to the effect of
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
26
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
the feedback provided by MS Word. As a result, the following questions were
addressed.
1. Does the feedback provided by the MS Word improve the students grammatical
accuracy in writing?
2. Does the feedback provided by the MS Word improve the Mechanics factor in
students essays?
3. Is there any significant difference between the C‚LL with RNs and C‚LL
without RNs in improving the students grammatical accuracy in writing?
4. Is there any significant difference between the C‚LL with RNs and C‚LL
without RNs in improving the Mechanics factor in students essays?
5. What are the attitudes of the participants in each group towards the treatments
they received?
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The participants were 50 (37 women and 13 men) Iranian B.A. English Translation
majors who took Academic Essay Writing (Advanced Writing) course in the semester
this study was conducted. There were
group, and
women and six men in the C‚LL with RNs
women and seven men in the C‚LL without RNs group. They all had
already passed Grammar courses (8 units) and Paragraph Development (2 units).
2.2. Sampling Procedures
The study was a pretest-posttest as well as a comparison-group one. Two intact classes
were used, but the classes were randomly assigned to each treatment. Thus, there were
two independent variables called C‚LL with RNs and C‚LL without RNs as well as
two dependent variables named grammatical accuracy and accuracy in Mechanics in
writing.
2.3. Instrumentation
To ensure that the individual participants and the groups were homogeneous, the
Straightforward Quick Placement & Diagnostic Test was used. The test had 50
questions, each worth one point. The first 40 were grammar questions and the final 10
were vocabulary questions. To decide on the students level, a conversion chart was
provided with the bandings as a guide. Most of the students scores in the researcher s
two classes ranged from 33 to 39 (i.e., the intermediate level, based on the guide). The
very few students whose scores were below 33 or above 39 were in the class during the
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
27
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
term and received the treatments, but their performances were not considered in this
study as the participants. In addition to the Straightforward Quick Placement &
Diagnostic Test, the participants pretest scores in both groups were also compared with
each other to ensure that the two groups were homogeneous.
Moreover, two samples of the Task 2 of the General Writing Module of IELTS
were used for both pretest and posttest. The task types in both tests were opinion-led,
i.e., they required the participants to indicate whether they agree or disagree with the
mentioned opinion; they also needed to present their own opinions and provide
reasons and examples. It should be noted that the participants had passed Grammar
and Paragraph Writing courses in the previous semesters; the participating students
had not passed the Academic Essay Writing course and they had just taken it, so they
were not expected to know the correct format of such essay; however, the main focus of
the study was just on the grammatical accuracy as well as the accuracy in the mechanics
factor, and thus, the other factors in writing an essay were not considered in
determining the results of this study.
To evaluate the learners essays, a detailed analytic scoring rubric for foreign
language writing which was provided by East (2009) was used. It consisted of five main
items:
1) Cohesion, coherence and rhetorical organization,
2) Knowledge of lexis, idiomatic expressions,
3) Grammatical competence: syntax, sentence-grammar semantics,
4) Mechanics spelling and punctuation, and
5) Knowledge of register and varieties of language; knowledge of cultural
references (where appropriate).
The scores in the rubric ranged from 0–7. As it was already mentioned, in this
study, the participants performance and achievements in the two items of Grammatical
Competence and Mechanics were considered.
Furthermore, to collect qualitative data, the participating students were asked to
take part in a semi-structured interview. Then, their opinions were qualitatively
analysed.
2.4. Procedure
At the outset, the teacher-researcher explained this study s purpose, requirements and
procedures to the students in each class. In addition, the students were assured that
their anonymity would be maintained. The pretest lasted about 45 minutes of a session
and the rest of the time, the teacher-researcher, using a laptop and projector, explained
and indicated what the students had to do at home after every session of the class and
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
28
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
during the semester. The teacher indicated how the students needed to use the word
processor tips and help to check and correct their grammatical, spelling and
punctuation errors. Treatments lasted 10 sessions and then the posttest was done.
Two points should be noted: (1) No student took the tests twice, and (2) The
topics of essays were different in pretests and posttests. However, the topics were the
same for both experimental groups. Intact classes were used and the classes were
arbitrarily assigned to one treatment or another. This semi-randomization procedure
was mentioned by Mackey and Gass (2005) as a possibility for dealing with nonrandomization of individuals when intact classes are used.
In order to prevent the possibility of the researcher s bias and considering the
rater reliability, each essay was scored independently by both researchers. The final
score consisted of the average score of the two raters.
Every session, the teacher taught a part the book, entitled, Longman Academic
Writing Series 4: Essay (5th edition) written by Oshima and Hogue (2014). This book was
used as the course source during the semester. Both groups were taught by one of the
researchers of the study. The students were first required to press the F7 key to disable
the program s checking option and then type their essays relevant to the lesson subject.
After the essays were typed, the students released the key and thus had the opportunity
to get feedback from program. They were required to notice the underlined sections in
green and red color, check the correct form offered by the word processor and check the
Help, provided by the software.
The participants in the C‚LL with RNs group were also required to keep a
notebook and take notes on their problems and the corrected forms indicated by the
word processor as well as any necessary further detailed explanation relevant to their
errors. Every time they obtained feedback provided by the software, they needed to
review their notes to check whether or not they had already made the same errors.
Every class session, besides the instructor s teaching a part of the book, the
students in both groups had sufficient time to consult the teacher-researcher about the
problems they faced during the week while working on MS Word and the feedback
they received from it. The participants in C‚LL with RNs group were required to
add teacher s feedback to their notes, too. In order to ensure that the participants had
been following the required procedures, the individuals in both groups had to take
snapshot of their working page on MS Word and showed it to the teacher-researcher.
It should be noted that the teacher-researcher also carefully corrected the
students essays, but she provided feedback only on Cohesion, coherence and rhetorical
organization as well as vocabulary and idiomatic expressions as just a form of focused
feedback. Consequently, according to Ellis
, the students burden of attending to
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
29
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
all types of their errors simultaneously would be reduced and thus, they would be able
to reflect much on each of their errors and as a result the feedback might be more
effective.
Another important point, which was considered, was that the C‚LL with RNs
group spent more time reflecting and taking notes on their errors; this extra time, which
was spent, could affect the reliability of the findings; therefore, to compensate for it, the
teacher-researcher suggested that the participants in the C‚LL without RNs refer to
Part 3 of the book, covering the essential grammatical structures and relevant exercises,
so the students could access metalinguistic clues for extra metalinguistic feedback.
Finally, in the session after finishing the treatment period, the semi-interview
was held. To encourage the participants to express themselves fully and very well, they
were told they could speak in Persian or English as they preferred. No student spoke in
English. Thus, their statements were translated into English by the researchers. The
participants were individually interviewed and the interviews were audio-recorded.
First, they were asked a question about their attitudes about the effectiveness of the
technique used as feedback. Depending on their responses, they were then asked to
elaborate on their reasons. According to ‛erg s
guidelines, the interviews were
then transcribed and content analysed in detail.
3. Data Analyses and Results
3.1. The Normality Tests
In the C‚LL without RNs group, the following tests did not enjoy normal distribution
pretests of both grammatical accuracy and accuracy in the Mechanics factor. In the
C‚LL with RNs group, only the pretest of accuracy in the Mechanics factor was the
only non-normal data. Their outcomes were not within the ranges of +/-1.96 (Field,
2013). Consequently, the tests that enjoyed normal distribution were analyzed through
the parametric independent t-test, but the other tests which did not meet the
assumption of normality were analyzed through the non-parametric test of MannWhitney U test (Field, 2013; Pallant, 2013).
3.2. Placement Tests
An independent t-test was run to compare the mean scores of both groups on the
placement test in order to find out whether or not the two groups were homogeneous.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
30
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
Table 1: Descriptive statistics placement test by groups
Group
N
Mean
SD
SEM
CALL with RNs
25
35.64
1.95
.39
CALL without RNs
25
35.60
1.97
.39
Table 2: Independent t-test placement test by groups
Levene's
Test
for t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of Variances
F
Equal variances
assumed
Sig.
.00
.94
Equal variances
not assumed
t
df
Sig. (2-
Mean
Std. Error
95% Confidence
tailed)
Difference
Difference
Interval
Lower
Upper
.07 48
.94
.04
.55
-1.07
1.15
.0747.99
.94
.04
.55
-1.07
1.15
As Table 2 indicates, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was not met
Levene s F=.
, p=.
<.
. That is why the second row of Table
assumed is reported Pallant,
Equal variances not
. ‛ased on the results displayed in Tables
and , it
could be concluded that the difference between the two groups was not significant
(t(47.99)=.07, p<.05); the p-value for this t was .94 (Sig(2-tailed)=.94>.05); however, it
represented a very small-sized effect (r=.01) based on Cohen (1988, as cited in Pallent,
2013).
3.3. Pretest of Grammatical Accuracy
A Mann-Whitney U test was run to compare the CALL with RNs and CALL without
RNs groups on the pretest of grammatical accuracy in writing in order to prove that
both groups were homogeneous regarding the level of grammatical accuracy prior to
the administration of the treatments. The test revealed no significant difference in the
grammatical accuracy of CALL with RNs group (Md=30.00) and CALL without RNs
(Md=30.50), U=283.50, z=-.62, p=.53, r=-087.
3.4. Pretest of Accuracy in the Mechanics Factor
A Mann-Whitney U test was run to compare the CALL with RNs and CALL without
RNs groups on the pretest of accuracy in the Mechanics factor in order to prove that
both groups were homogeneous with regard to the accuracy in the mechanics factor of
the participants written texts prior to the administration of the treatments. The test
indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups. (Md for both
grups=3.50), U=298.50, z=-.29, p=.77, r=-.041.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
31
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
3.5. Inter-rater Reliability Indices
The Cronbach alpha indices were calculated as inter-rater reliability coefficients.
Table 3: Inter-rater reliability indices
Tests
Indices
Pretest of Grammatical Accuracy
.83
Pretest of Accuracy in the Mechanics Factor
.84
Posttest of Grammatical Accuracy
.95
Posttest of Accuracy in the Mechanics Factor
.98
Delayed Posttest of Grammatical Accuracy
.94
Delayed Posttest of Accuracy in the Mechanics Factor
.98
3.6. The first Research Question
A paired-sample t-test was conducted to evaluate the impact of CALL without RNs on
students pretest and posttest scores on grammatical accuracy of their written texts.
There was a statistically significant increase in the above-mentioned scores from the
pretest (M=3.44, SD=.46) to posttest (M=4.22, SD=.84), t(24)=-8.11, p=.000<.05 (twotailed). The mean increase was .78 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from -.97 to .58. The eta squared statistic (.73) indicated a large effect size as proposed by Cohen
(1988, cited from Pallant, 2013).
Another paired-sample t-test was conducted to evaluate the impact of CALL
without RNs on students pretest and delayed posttest scores on grammatical accuracy
of their written texts. There was a statistically significant increase in the abovementioned scores from the pretest (M=3.44, SD=.46) to delayed posttest (M=4.30,
SD=.80), t(24)=-8.10, p=.000<.05 (two-tailed). The mean increase was .86 with a 95%
confidence interval ranging from -1.07 to -.64. The eta squared statistic (.73) indicated a
large effect size as proposed by Cohen (1988, cited from Pallant, 2013).
3.7. The Second Research Question
A paired-sample t-test was conducted to evaluate the impact of CALL without RNs on
students pretest and posttest scores on the accuracy in the Mechanics factor of their
written texts. There was a statistically significant increase in the above-mentioned
scores from the pretest (M=3.46, SD=.45) to posttest (M=4.52, SD=1.07), t(24)=-7.29,
p=.000<.05 (two-tailed). The mean increase was 1.06 with a 95% confidence interval
ranging from -1.35 to -.76. The eta squared statistic (.68) indicated a large effect size as
proposed by Cohen (1988, cited from Pallant, 2013).
Another paired-sample t-test was conducted to evaluate the impact of CALL
without RNs on students pretest and posttest scores on the accuracy in the Mechanics
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
32
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
factor of their written texts. There was a statistically significant increase in the abovementioned scores from the pretest (M=3.46, SD=.45) to delayed posttest (M=4.64,
SD=1.06), t(24)=-8.19, p=.000<.05 (two-tailed). The mean increase was 1.18 with a 95%
confidence interval ranging from -1.47 to -.88. The eta squared statistic (.73) indicated a
large effect size as proposed by Cohen (1988, cited from Pallant, 2013).
3.8. The Third Research Question
An independent t-test was run to compare the mean scores of the CALL with RNs and
CALL without RNs groups on the posttest of grammatical accuracy in order to probe
the effect of the two types of treatments on the improvement of the grammatical
accuracy of the students written texts after the administration of the treatments.
Table 4: Descriptive statistics posttest of grammatical accuracy by groups
Group
N
Mean
SD
SEM
CALL with RNs
25
5.32
.55
.11
CALL without RNs
25
4.22
.84
.16
Table 5: Independent t-test posttest of grammatical accuracy by groups
Levene's Test for
t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of Variances
F
Equal variances
13.13
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
‚s Table
Sig.
.00
t
df
Sig. (2-
Mean
Std. Error
95% Confidence
tailed)
Difference
Difference
Interval
Lower
Upper
5.44 48
.000
1.10
.20
.69
1.50
5.4441.60
.000
1.10
.20
.69
1.50
shows, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was not met Levene s
F=13.13, p=.
<.
. That is why the second row of Table
Equal variances not
assumed is reported (Pallant, 2013). Based on the results displayed in Tables 4 and 5, it
could be concluded that the difference between the two groups was significant
(t(41.60)=5.44, p<.05); the p-value for this t was .000 (Sig(2-tailed)=.000<.05); it
represented an above medium effect (r=.64) based on Cohen (1988, as cited in Pallent,
2013).
Another independent t-test was run to compare the mean scores of the CALL
with RNs and CALL without RNs groups on the delayed posttest of grammatical
accuracy.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
33
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
Table 6: Descriptive statistics delayed posttest of grammatical accuracy by groups
Group
N
Mean
SD
SEM
CALL with RNs
25
5.36
.55
.11
CALL without RNs
25
4.24
.84
.16
Table 7: Independent t-test delayed posttest of grammatical accuracy by groups
Levene's Test for
t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of Variances
F
Equal variances
13.76
assumed
Sig.
.00
Equal variances
not assumed
‚s Table
t
df
Sig. (2-
Mean
Std. Error
95% Confidence
tailed)
Difference
Difference
Interval
Lower
Upper
5.56 48
.000
1.12
.20
.71
1.52
5.5641.29
.000
1.12
.20
.71
1.52
shows, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was not met Levene s
F=13.76, p=.
<.
. That is why the second row of Table
assumed is reported Pallant,
Equal variances not
. ‛ased on the results displayed in Tables 6 and 7, it
could be concluded that the difference between the two groups was significant
(t(41.29)=5.56, p<.05); the p-value for this t was .000 (Sig(2-tailed)=.000<.05); it
represented an above medium effect (r=.65) based on Cohen (1988, as cited in Pallent,
2013).
3.9. The Fourth Research Questions
An independent t-test was run to compare the mean scores of the CALL with RNs and
CALL without RNs groups on the posttest of accuracy in the Mechanics factor in order
to probe the effect of the two types of treatments on the improvement of the Mechanics
factor of the students written texts after the administration of the treatments.
Table 8: Descriptive statistics posttest of accuracy in Mechanics by groups
Group
N
Mean
SD
SEM
CALL with RNs
25
5.64
.65
.13
CALL without RNs
25
4.52
1.07
.21
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
34
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
Table 9: Independent t-test posttest of accuracy in Mechanics by groups
Levene's Test for
t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of Variances
F
Equal variances
Sig.
4.38
assumed
t
.044.45
Equal variances
not assumed
df
Sig. (2-
Mean
tailed)
Difference
Std. Error 95% Confidence
Difference
Interval
Lower
Upper
48
.000
1.12
.25
.61
1.62
4.4539.61
.000
1.12
.25
.61
1.62
As Table 9 indicates, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was not met
Levene s F= .
, p=.
<.
. That is why the second row of Table
assumed is reported Pallant,
Equal variances not
. ‛ased on the results displayed in Tables
and , it
could be concluded that the difference between the two groups was significant
(t(39.61)=4.45, p<.05); the p-value for this t was .000 (Sig(2-tailed)=.000<.05); it
represented a medium effect (r=.57) based on Cohen (1988, as cited in Pallent, 2013).
Another independent t-test was run to compare the mean scores of the CALL with RNs
and CALL without RNs groups on the delayed posttest of accuracy in the Mechanics
factor.
Table 10: Descriptive statistics delayed posttest of accuracy in Mechanics by groups
Group
N
Mean
SD
SEM
CALL with RNs
25
5.68
.67
.13
CALL without RNs
25
4.52
1.07
.21
Table 11: Independent t-test delayed posttest of accuracy in Mechanics by groups
Levene's Test for
t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of Variances
F
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
3.68
Sig.
.06
t
df
Sig. (2-
Mean
Std. Error
95% Confidence
tailed)
Difference
Difference
Interval
Lower
Upper
4.56 48
.000
1.16
.25
.64
1.67
4.5640.38
.000
1.16
.25
.64
1.67
‚s Table
indicates, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met Levene s
F=3.68, p=.
>.
. That is why the first row of Table
Equal variances assumed is
reported (Pallant, 2013). Based on the results displayed in Tables 10 and 11, it could be
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
35
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
concluded that the difference between the two groups was significant (t(48)=4.56,
p<.05); the p-value for this t was .000 (Sig(2-tailed)=.000<.05); it represented a medium
effect (r=.55) based on Cohen (1988, as cited in Pallent, 2013).
3.10. The Fifth Research Question
What follows represent the participating students responses to the interview questions.
Attempts are made to provide relevant quotes from their responses to convey key
themes and what they said about their perspectives and reasons.
Generally, the participants in both groups had positive attitudes towards
receiving feedback by MS Word. The following are some samples of the participants
statements:
In my opinion, typing essay on MS Word is helpful. I think my essay writing will
improve greatly when it is assisted by word processor.
mistakes and I know I can get a better mark.
Now I’m interested in typing my essay on MS Word. I like it when I correct my
I am more relaxed when MS Word helps me find my mistakes.
I feel less stressed because I know I will have fewer mistakes.
I am more motivated to write extra essays at home and check my mistakes using MS
Word.
writing it on a paper.
I think writing an essay with the help of MS Word is easier and more interesting than
My grammar knowledge was not or I can say is not good, so writing has always been
stressful to me because I knew I would have lots of grammatical mistakes and thus I
would lose mark; I like the feedback provided by the word processor because I liked it
when I had time to correct my mistakes before the teacher corrected it for me. I liked
reading the tips when I made a mistake and the word underlined it. I also felt more
relaxed.
I love to be tidy, so I’m used to typing my essays and I was familiar with word processor
and its underlining the texts. I already used the MS Word checking system, but this
time, during the semester, I was more careful. In addition, I didn’t use to read the tips
provided by the word-processor; I only corrected my wrong sentence according to the
suggested correct form, but I understood I could use the tips and it helped me. When I
read them, the grammatical structure was reminded to me. It was helpful.
I have always liked typing my essays but because my essays would be cleaner and tidier;
I used to use the Word processor’s different fonts and margins, but I didn’t use to pay
attention to capitalization, punctuation, and the grammatical structures given by the
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
36
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
word-processor. I’m going to use the Word program’s feedback forever. My writing skill
will improve.
‚s it is evident in the participants statements, they had positive attitudes
towards using the word-processor mainly because they felt less stressed and
more relaxed when they received immediate feedback. In addition, they believed
that receiving such computer-assisted feedback made them more interested in
writing essay and thus helped them improve their writing skill.
In spite of the above-mentioned information, few participants indicated
that using the word-processor s feedback was not sufficient for them and they
needed their teacher s help, too. Two samples are mentioned below.
I really liked this experience, but I think I also need my teacher’s help. Sometimes I
couldn’t understand why the MS Word underlined a part of my writing.
It was good, but I felt more relaxed when I knew I would have the opportunity to ask my
teacher the parts that I hadn’t understood on my computer.
Very few students said that the assignment was time-consuming for them,
especially because of their own weaknesses in typing skill or working on
computer; nevertheless, they reported that the experience was beneficial for
them.
I’m not good at typing the texts quickly and it was time-consuming for me, but it was
so good that I could use the Word program’s feedback to check my errors.
“t first, I didn’t like this work because I can’t work on computer very well, but little by
little, I became interested in it and using word-processor feedback was useful to me.
I had problem with typing the texts because I was so slow and I could use only two
fingers to type. It took time longer than writing using pen and paper, but honestly, the
feedback was really good and helpful.
Considering the RNs in the C‚LL with RNs group, the participants also
had positive attitude towards it.
explanations.
writing.
and then review my notes during the tests.
I loved keeping RNs; they helped me review my past mistakes and reading the
RNs were helpful to me because I constantly remembered what I needed to notice while
I loved RNs because I love taking notes. I always take notes when I study my lessons
Using Word program and RNs, the time I spent at home writing my essays was like a
class; I really liked it because I could have two teachers reminding me my mistakes and
explaining the important necessary points to me.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
37
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
Before being accepted into university, I used to go to English institutes. I wrote essays
there and my teachers always corrected my mistakes and gave me marks, but I had a new
interesting experience this term at university by MS Word and RNs. While I was
writing an essay at home, I felt I was studying a lesson carefully. Both techniques were
really useful. I will continue doing them.
Word software helped me understand that I had made a mistake, then showed me the
tips; then I noted down my mistake and the explanations, and I also reviewed my notes
whenever I was writing an essay. All these made me be more careful and they really
helped me.
On the other hand, there were a few students who didn t like RNs
technique, not because they found it useless, but mainly because of some
personal preferences which could stem from the individual differences. The
following include some samples:
To tell you the truth, I didn’t like RNs because it was so boring to me. I dislike writing,
but I can’t say RNs is not helpful.
I think RNs can be useful, but I think I don’t need this technique. I think it was enough
for me to read the Word processor tips. I could remember them. Writing about my
mistakes in RNs was time-consuming and not necessary.
RNs were good and useful, but I really preferred to keep audio reflective notes not a
written one. I liked it more if I were allowed to record my voice while explaining the
points and saved the tracks as RNs. I think if I had done it, I would have benefitted
greatly.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
In this study, the effect of corrective feedback provided by MS word processor on the
writing accuracy of the L2 learners was investigated. The participants in both groups,
the one with the technique of keeping reflective notes and the one without it, showed
progress in their writing accuracy; however, the students who were required to take
reflective notes together with receiving the feedback of the program s checking system
outperformed the other group. What follows is a summary of the probable effective
factors contributing to the findings of this study.
A factor to be considered is the writing anxiety. Cheng (2004) categorized the
sources of writing anxiety into: instructional practices, personal beliefs about writing
and learning to write, low self-confidence, and the threats of interpersonal evaluation.
Tsai (2008, as cited in Tsao, Tseng, & Wang, 2017) also argued that writing anxiety is
determined by factors such as linguistic ability, socio-psychological phenomena and
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
38
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
cognitive factors, as well as classroom practices. Some scholars (e.g., Cheng, Horwitz, &
Schallert, 1999; Faigley, Daly, & Witte, 1981) found a significant negative correlation
between language anxiety and writing performance. On the other hand, other
researchers (e.g., Pajares & Johnson, 1994), in spite of the acknowledging the existence
of a correlation between anxiety and learners writing, thought that writing anxiety
does not directly affect students writing performance they believed that anxiety itself
is not an independent variable and that some other individual factors, such as the
confidence or self-efficacy while performing tasks, can eventually affect their outcome.
Huwari and Hashima (2011) also showed that L2 learners with high writing anxiety had
some characteristics, including lacking self-esteem and confidence in improving their
writing skills; they usually write papers of low quality (e.g., lacking enough
grammatical knowledge and well-developed ideas), and lacking motivation in writing.
In Rankin-‛rown s
research, highly anxious students avoided writing, probably
because of a fear of teacher and peer evaluation. Such students might consider teacher
or peer feedback as criticism and simply paid no attention to it (Goodman & Cirka,
2009). As a result, Choi (2013) recommended language instructors adopt more effective
ways to ease the anxiety that learners might feel when learning and writing English in
order to support successful language learning experiences. Furthermore, Andrade and
Evans (2013) argued that finding ways to effectively self-regulate the learners writing
motivation and emotion in face of setbacks is critical for both students and teachers. In
this study, as some students stated, the applied techniques eased their stress, so the
techniques might have some positive effects on the students individual factors, such as
the ones reported above although each issue needs careful investigation.
The next important factor which could be considered is autonomy. Different
scholars have presented different views about autonomy. Little (1990) believed that
autonomy is a process. Nunan (1996) claimed that autonomy is not an absolute concept
and there are degrees of autonomy. Thus, according to Shinge
, p.
, autonomy is
a construct that is continually changing . It is possible to teach language learners to be
autonomous, but the degree to which they will succeed in becoming autonomous
differs, which is determined by the individual differences, such as the personality traits,
language learning goals, cultural context, etc. (Shinge, 2005). Regarding the present
study, as Kenning (1996) already stated, MS Word could be intrinsically supportive of
cognitive and metacognitive autonomy because they encourage their users to consider
their compositions critically and try to make improvements.
Moreover, autonomy is often found to be linked with higher learner motivation
(Dickinson, 1995; Little, 2007). Although Spratt, Humphreys, and Chan (2002) found
that motivation is a key factor that influences the extent to which learners are ready to
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
39
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
learn autonomously
p.
, Dörnyei
, p.
stated, autonomy results
significantly higher level of L2 intrinsic motivation . Dörnyei and Csizer
in a
had already
advised teachers to motivate the learners by promoting their autonomy.
On the other hand, Amrhein and Nassaji (2010) stated that the effectiveness of
written corrective feedback depends on learners opinions of the feedback and their
preferences regarding it. In addition, previous research (Grombczewska, 2011;
Rollinson, 2005; Shawish & Abdelraheem, 2010) also suggested that different sources as
well as types of feedback may affect learners motivation and anxiety. Considering this
study and as it was explained earlier in the Introduction, computer-based task (i.e.
using MS Word checking system) might support flow because as Egbert (3003) said,
flow can occur by tasks under the following conditions:
a) there is a perceived balance of task challenge and participation skills during the
task,
b) the task offers opportunities for intense concentration and the participants
attention is focused on the pursuit of clear task goals, (3) the participants find the
task intrinsically interesting or authentic, and (4) the participants perceive a
sense of control over the task process and outcomes. (p. 513)
Furthermore, a number of scholars (e.g., Robinson, 1995; Schmidt, 1990, 1995,
2001; Tomlin and Villa 1994) argued that attention plays a crucial role in promoting
linguistic processing in learners second language development in their opinions,
noticing is a prerequisite for L2 learning to take place. Moreover, according to Schmidt
(2010), some second language learners notice more than others and individual
differences in noticing ability correlate with rate of learning. For example, being a
motivated learner or an unmotivated one can affect the person s noticing ability as
Gardner (1988) stated motivated learners are successful because they are active and pay
more attention to the information. As a result, they notice more and try harder to
understand the noticed language and thus they achieve higher levels of awareness and
learning.
In addition, according to the constructivist view of language learning, students
learn in problem-solving environments that challenge their prior knowledge and
encourage them to reflect on the differences between their own knowledge and that of
the course (Nelson, 2002). According to constructivists, learning always involves both
analyzing and transforming new information O Donoghue & Clarke,
as Chau and Cheng
effective learning.
. Moreover,
stated, Reflection has been increasingly recognized as integral to
p.
. Research also suggests that systematic reflection on
experiences can produce a variety of benefits, such as understanding one s behaviors
and motivations, as well as increasing one s confidence and competence Thorpe,
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
.
40
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
In this study, students were active participants in their learning. They were required to
monitor their produced output and correct their erroneous statements. The participants
in the CALL with RNs were even required to be consciously aware of their learning
processes. Thus, based on (Gilbert, 1989, as cited in Callele, 2008), because they were in
charge and control of their learning, they took responsibility for the quality of it as well.
In conclusion, the findings of this study were in line with the theories of both fields of
CALL and the effect of reflection explained in the Introduction. Furthermore, what is
found supports the findings of the previous studies done in this regard as reported in
the Introduction. In addition, based on the findings of the qualitative data (i.e., the
interview responses) in this study and what has already been suggested by the scholars
(e.g., Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum, & Wolfersberger, 2010; Kormos, 2012), the EFL
instructors had better keep the essential factor of individual differences in mind, so they
could provide the learners with more effective techniques. Regarding the implication of
this study, it should be mentioned that as this study was an action research carried out
in a real classroom context and beneficial results have been achieved, the employed
techniques in this study are recommended to L2 writing instructors.
About the Authors
Fatemeh Soltanpour holds an MA in TEFL from Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
She s been teaching EFL at Educational Center of Jahad, Karaj, since
, and Kar
Institute of Higher Education, Qazvin, Iran since 2013. Her areas of interest include
psycholinguistics, individual differences in language learning, corrective feedback,
learner autonomy, CALL, teacher education and development
Mohammadreza Valizadeh holds an MA in TEFL from University of Tehran, Iran and
is now pursuing his PhD at Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. He has published several
articles in different scholarly journals. His areas of interest include psycholinguistics,
language learning strategies, learner and teacher autonomy, task-based language
teaching and individual differences in language learning.
References
1. ‚bbott, J,
. ‛linking out and having the touch
Two fifth-grade boys talk
about flow experiences in writing. Written Communication, 17(1): 53–92. doi:
10.1177/0741088300017001003
2. Alijani, A, & Barjesteh, H, 2016. The impact of collaborative reflective journals on
writing fluency of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Modern Language
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
41
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
Teaching and Learning, 1(2): 44-53. Retrieved from ijmltl.com/fulltext/paper18062016161042.pdf
3. Amrhein, H, R, & Nassaji, H, 2010. Written corrective feedback: What do
students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics,
13(2): 95–127. Retrieved from files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ944129.pdf
4. Andrade, M, S., & Evans, N, W, 2013. Principles and practices for response to second
language writing: Developing self-regulated learners, New York, NY, Routledge.
5. Barrass, R, 1995. Students must write: a guide to better writing in coursework and
examinations, London, Routledge.
6. Barkaoui, K, 2007. Teaching writing to second language learners: Insights from
theory and research, TESL Reporter 40(1): 35-48.
7. Barzegar, K, Fattahi Bafghil, A, & Allami, H, 2011. Effect of Microsoft wordbased computer assisted instruction method on general proficiency of Iranian
medical
students.
Education
Research
Journal,
1(6):
105-112.
www.ssu.ac.ir/.../Effect_of_Microsoft_Word-Based_Computer_Assisted.pdf
8. Berg, B, L, 2007. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Boston,
MA, Allyn & Bacon.
9. Bernhardt, S, A, Wojahn, P, & Edwards, P, 1989. Teaching college composition
with computers: A program evaluation study. Written Communication, 6(1): 108133, doi: 10.1177/0741088389006001007
10. Bitchener, J, 2008. Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 17(2): 102–118, doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
11. Bitchener, J, & Knoch, U, 2008. The value of written corrective feedback for
migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3): 409–431,
doi: 10.1177/1362168808089924
12. Bitchener, J, & Knoch, U, 2010a. The contribution of written corrective feedback
to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2):
193–214, doi: 10.1093/applin/amp016
13. Bitchener, J, & Knoch, U, 2010b. Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced
L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing,
19(4): 207–217, doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
14. Blake, R, 2000. Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish
interlanguage.
Language
Learning
and
Technology,
41(1):
120-136.
llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake
15. Brockbank, A, & McGill, I, 1998. Facilitating reflective learning in higher education.
London, Society for Research into Higher Education, Ltd.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
42
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
16. Callele, M, F, 2008. An investigation of formative and summative portfolio assessment
methods,
Master s
thesis,
http://library2.usask.ca/theses/available/etd-
04252008.../ETD_PDF_080430.pdf
17. Chapelle, C, A, 2001. Innovative language learning: Achieving the vision.
ReCALL, 13(01): 3-14, doi: 10.1017/S0958344001000210
18. Chapelle, C, A, 2005. Interactionist SLA theory in CALL research. In J. L. Egbert,
& G. M. Petrie (Eds.) CALL research perspectives (pp. 53-64). Mahwah, New Jersey,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
19. Chatel, R, G, 2002. New technology, new literacy: Creating a bridge for English
language learners. The New English and Reading Association Journal, 38(3): 45-49.
www.gwinnett.k12.ga.us/HopkinsES/Alfonso.../computers_bridge_for_ELLs.pdf
20. Chau, J, & Cheng, G,
. Developing Chinese students reflective second
language learning skills in higher education. The Journal of Language Teaching and
Learning, 2(1): 15-32. www.jltl.org/index.php/jltl/article/download/54/21
21. Cheng, Y, S, 200 . EFL students writing anxiety Sources and Implications.
English
Teaching
&
Learning,
29
−
.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ys_Cheng2/publication/306392321_EFL_St
udents%27_Writing_Anxiety_Sources_and_Implications/links/57bc5bc508ae51ee
f1f61d8c/EFL-Students-Writing-Anxiety-Sources-and-Implications.pdf
22. Cheng, Y, S, Horwitz, E, K., & Schallert, D, L, 1999. Language anxiety:
Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49(3):
−
, doi
.
/
-8333.00095
23. Choi, S, 2013. Language anxiety in second language writing: Is it really a
stumbling block? Second Language Studies, 31(2): 1-42. www.hawaii.edu/sls/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/Choi-Sujeong.pdf
24. Cohen, A, M, Ritter, F, E, & Haynes, S, R, 2007. Using reflective learning to
master opponent strategy in competitive environments. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, 157-162. Oxford, UK: Taylor &
Francis/Psychology Press. http://acs.ist.psu.edu/papers/cohenRH07.pdf
25. Corpuz, V, ‚, F, S,
. Error correction in second language writing Teachers
beliefs, practices, and students
preferences, Master s Thesis, Queensland
University of Technology. eprints.qut.edu.au/49160/1/Victor_Corpuz_Thesis.pdf
26. Darus, S, Ismail, K, M, & Ismail, M, B, 2008. Effects of word processing on Arab
postgraduate students essays in EFL. European Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2): 7791.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235772391_Effects_of_word_processin
g_on_Arab_postgraduate_students%27_essays_in_EFL
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
43
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
27. Dörnyei, Z, 2005. The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in
second language acquisition. Manwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
28. Dornyei, Z, & Csizer, K, 1998. Ten commandments for motivating language
learners: Results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2(3): 203-229,
doi: 10.1191/136216898668159830
29. Duppenthaler, P, 2004. Journal writing and the question of transfer of skills to
other
types
of
writing.
JALT
Journal,
26:
171-188.
http://jaltpublications.org/archive/jj/2004b/art3.pdf - Japan
30. East, M, 2009. Evaluating the reliability of a detailed analytic scoring rubric for
foreign
language
writing.
Assessing
Writing
14:
2,
88–115,
doi:
10.1016/j.asw.2009.04.001
31. Egbert, J, L, 2003. A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom.
Modern Language Journal, 87(4): 499-518, doi: 10.1111/1540-4781.00204
32. Egbert, J, L, 2005. Flow as a Model for CALL Research. In J. L. Egbert, & G. M.
Petrie (Eds.) CALL research perspective (pp. 129-140). Mahwah, New Jersey,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
33. El-Ghamry, M, A, H, 2015. Integrating reflective learning into TEFL at the
secondary stage in KSA. Humanising Language Teaching, 17(1): (Online Article).
www.hltmag.co.uk/feb15/sart03.htm
34. Ellis, R, 1999. Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam, John
Benjamins.
35. Ellis, R, 2009. A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2):
97-107, doi: 10.1093/elt/ccn023
36. Ellis, R, Loewen, S, & Erlam, R, 2006. Implicit and explicit corrective feedback
and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language, 28(2): 339-368, doi:
10.1017/S0272263106060141
37. Ellis, R, Sheen, Y, Murakami, M, & Takashima, H, 2008. The effects of focused
and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language
context. System, 36(3): 353–371, doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
38. Evans, N, W, Hartshorn, K, J, McCollum, R, M, & Wolfersberger, M, 2010.
Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy.
Language Teaching Research 14(4): 445–463, doi: 10.1177/1362168810375367
39. Faigley, L, Daly, J, & Witte, S, 1981. The role of writing apprehension in writing
performance and competence. Journal of Educational Research, 75(1): 16–21, doi:
10.1080/00220671.1981.10885348
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
44
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
40. Farrell,
T,
1998.
Reflective
teaching.
Forum,
36(4):
10-17.
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/usia/E-USIA/forum/vols/vol36/no4/p10.htm
41. Fazio, L, L, 2001. The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal
writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 10(4): 235-249, doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00042-X
42. Ferris, D, R, 1999. The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A
response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1): 1–10, doi:
10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
43. Ferris, D, R, 2010. Second language writing research and written corrective
feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2): 181–201, doi:
10.1017/S0272263109990490
44. Ferris, D, R, & Roberts, B, 2001. Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How
explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3): 161-184, doi:
10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
45. Field, A, 2013. Discovering statistics using SPSS. (4th ed.). London: Sage.
46. Gardner, R, C, 1988. The Socio-educational Model of Second-language Learning:
Assumptions, Findings, and Issues. Language Learning, 38(1): 101-126, doi:
10.1111/j.1467-1770.1988.tb00403.x
47. Ghanbari, N, Shamsoddini, M, R, & Radmehr, A, 2015. The effect of CALL on
vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. IOSR
Journal
of
Research
&
Method
in
Education
(IOSR-JRME),5(4):
95-103.
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jrme/papers/Vol-5%20Issue-4/Version2/Q054295103.pdf
48. Ghani, J, & Deshpande, S, 1994. Task characteristics and the experience of
optimal
flow
in
human-computer
interaction.
Journal
of
Psychology
Interdisciplinary and Applied, 128(4): 381–392, doi: 10.1080/00223980.1994.9712742
49. Ghorbani, S, & Marzban, A, 2013. The Effect of CALL on Iranian Beginner EFL
Learners‟ Grammar Learning. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 3(7):
15-25.
http://www.academians.org/Media/Default/Articles/July2013/July2013-
2.pdf
50. Goodman, S, G, & Cirka, C, C, 2009. Efficacy and anxiety: An examination of
writing attitudes in a first-year seminar. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching,
20(3):
5–29.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carol_Cirka/publication/264496818_Efficac
y_and_Anxiety_An_Examination_of_Writing_Attitudes_in_a_FirstYear_Seminar/links/53e183fa0cf2235f352bce22.pdf
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
45
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
51. Grombczewska, M,
students
. The relationship between teacher s feedback and
motivation. Humanising Language Teaching, 3: (Online Article)
http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jun11/stud.htm
52. Hayati, A, 2005. The computer and language teaching. Asian EFL Journal
Professional Teaching Articles Collection, 4: 75-81.
53. Hegelheimer, V,
. Using C‚LL in the classroom ‚nalysing students
interactions. System, 32(2): 185-205, doi: 10.1016/j.system.2003.11.007
54. Hemmati, F, & Soltanpour, F, 2012. A comparison of the effects of reflective
learning portfolios and dialogue journal writing on Iranian EFL learners
accuracy in writing performance. English Language Teaching, 5(11): 16-28, doi:
10.5539/elt.v5n11p16
55. Howrey, J, D, & Tanner, P, 2008. Writing portfolios: Empowering students,
teachers, and the curriculum. JALT2008 Conference Proceedings. (pp. 1157-1167).
http://jalt-publications.org/recentpdf/proceedings/2008/E087.pdf
56. Huwari, I, & Hashima, N, 2011.Writing apprehension in English among
Jordanian postgraduate students in UUM. Academic Research International Journal,
190–198.
1(2):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215717609_writing_apprehension_in_e
nglish_among_jordanian_postgraduate_students_at_universiti_utara_malaysia_
uum
57. Hyland, F, & Hyland, K, 2001. Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in writing
feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3): 185-212, doi: 10.1016/S10603743(01)00038-8
58. Jafarian, K, Soori, A, & Kafipour, R, 2012. The effect of computer assisted
language learning on EFL high school students writing achievement. European
Journal
of
Social
Sciences,
27(2):
138-148.
https://www.academia.edu/13316870/The_effect_of_computer_assisted_language
_learning_on_EFL_high_school_students_writing_achievement
59. Kenning, M, M, 1996. IT and autonomy. In E. Broady and M. M. Kennings (eds.)
Promoting learner autonomy in university language teaching. (pp. 121 – 138). London,
Association for French Language Studies/CILT
60. Kormos, J, 2012. The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 21(4), 390-403, doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003.
61. Lam, F, S, & Pennington, M, C, 1995. The computer vs. the pen: A comparative
study of word processing in a Hong Kong secondary classroom. ComputerAssisted Language Learning, 8(1): 75-92, doi: 10.1080/0958822950080106
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
46
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
62. Lavolette, E, Polio, C, & Kahng, J, 2015. The accuracy of computer-assisted
feedback and students responses to it. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2): 5068. http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2015/lavolettepoliokahng.pdf
63. Lee, H, K,
. ‚ comparative study of ESL writers performance in a paper-
based and a computer-delivered writing test. Assessing Writing, 9(1): 4-26, doi:
10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.001
64. Levy, M, 2009. Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern
Language Journal, 93(s1): 769-782, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00972.x
65. Lew, M, D, N, & Schmidt, H, G, 2011. Self-reflection and academic performance:
Is there a relationship? Adv in Health Sci Educ, 16(4): 529–545, doi: 10.1007/s10459011-9298-z
66. Li, Y, 2000. Linguistic characteristics of ESL writing in task-based email activities.
System, 28: 229-245, doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00009-9
67. Li, J, 2006. The mediation of technology in ESL writing and its implications for
writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 11(1): 5-21, doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2005.09.001
68. Li, J, & Cumming, A, 2001. Word processing and second language writing: A
longitudinal case study. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2): 127-152.
https://digitum.um.es/jspui/bitstream/10201/2105/1/211092.pdf?sequence=1
69. Liaw, M, L, 1998. Using electronic mail for English as a foreign language
instruction. System, 26(3): 335-351, doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00025-6
70. Lyster, R, 2004. Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused
instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3): 399-432, doi:
10.1017/S0272263104263021
71. Mackey, A, & Gass, S, M, 2005. Second language research: Methodology and design.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
72. Meng, Y, 2013. Written corrective feedback: A review of studies since Truscott (1996).
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/download/fedora.../ac.../6.-Meng2013.pdf
73. Minjong, S, 1997. The effect of dialogue journal writing on writing quality, reading
comprehension,
and
writing
apprehension
of
EFL
college
students.
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp...(ED410766)
74. Moon, J, 1999. Reflection in learning and professional development, theory and practice.
London, Kogan Page.
75. Murphy, J, 2001. Reflective teaching in ELT. In M. Celce- Murcia (ed.). Teaching
English as a second or foreign language. (pp. 499-413). US, Heinel and Heinle.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
47
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
76. Naraghizadeh, M, & Barimani, S, 2013. The Effect of CALL on the Vocabulary
Learning of Iranian EFL Learners. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 3(8): 112. http://www.academians.org/Articles/August2013-1.pdf
77. Nelson, C. P, Jr. 2002. Contradictions in learning to write in a second language
classroom: Insights from radical constructivism, activity theory, and complexity theory
(Doctoral dissertation). http://repositories2.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/812
78. Niazi, F, & Pourgharib, B, 2013. The effect of using email on enhancing Iranian
intermediate EFL learners writing proficiency. International Research Journal of
Applied
and
Basic
Sciences,
3531-3539.
4(11):
www.irjabs.com/files_site/paperlist/r_1334_130913183010.pdf
79. O Donoghue, T, & Clarke, S,
. Leading Learning: Process, themes and issues in
international contexts. Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge.
80. Oshima, A, & Hogue, A, 2014. Longman academic writing series 4: Essays. (5th ed.).
US, Pearson Education, Inc.
81. Owston, R, D, Murphy, S, & Wideman, H, H, 1992. The effects of word
processing on students writing quality and revision strategies. Research in the
Teaching
of
English,
249-276.
26:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171308?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
82. Owston, R, D, & Wideman, H, H, 1997. Word processors and children s writing
in a high-computer-access setting. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
30(2): 202-220, doi: 10.1080/08886504.1997.10782223
83. Pajares, F, & Johnson, M, J, 1994. Confidence and competence in writing: The role
of writing self-efficacy, outcome expectancy and apprehension. Research in the
Teaching
English,
313-331.
28:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171341?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
84. Pallant, J, 2013. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step guide to data analysis using
IBM SPSS. (5th ed.). Berkshire, England, Open University Press.
85. Pica, T, 1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about secondlanguage learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3):
493-527, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x
86. Polio, C, 2012. The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written
error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4): 375–389, doi:
10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004
87. Rankin-Brown, M, 2006. Addressing writing apprehension in adult English
language
learners.
Proceedings
of
the
CATESOL
State
Conference.
http://64.8.104.26/06Rankin1.pdf
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
48
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
88. Razak, R, A, & Asmawi, A, 2004. The use of dialogue journal through e-mail
technology in developing writing interest and skills. Malaysian Online Journal of
Instructional
Technology
(MOJIT)
1(2):
14-23.
http://pppjj.usm.my/mojit/articles/pdf/1204/TheUseofDialogueJournalThroughE
mailTechnology.pdf
89. Robinson, P,
. ‚ttention, memory and the noticing hypothesis. Language
Learning, 45(2): 283– 331, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00441.x
90. Rollinson, P, 2005. Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal,
59(1): 23–30, doi: 10.1093/elt/cci003
91. Sabooni, M, & Salehi, N, 2015. The impact of reflective learning portfolio on the
development of writing accuracy. Journal of Social Issues & Humanities, 3(1): 203206. http://www.journalsih.com/Research...pdf
92. Salem, M, S, A, 2007. The effect of journal writing on written performance,
writing apprehension, and attitudes of Egyptian English majors, PhD
Dissertation,
The
Pennsylvania
State
University.
https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/4340
93. Salteh, M, A, & Sadeghi, K,
. Teachers corrective feedback in L writing
revisited: Concerns against and suggestions for its employment. World Applied
Sciences
Journal
17(3):
375-383.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=7306786B9853953A6D
C6395411765EBF?doi=10.1.1.389.4582&rep=rep1&type=pdf
94. Schiefele, U, & Csikszentmihalyi, M, 1994. Interest and the quality of experience
in classrooms. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 9: 251–270.
https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/files/3183/schiefele1994_IX.pdf
95. Schmidt, R, 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11(2): 129–58, doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.129
96. Schmidt, R, 1995. Consciousness and foreign language learning: a tutorial on the
role of attention and awareness in learning. In Schimidt. R., (Ed.), Attention and
awareness in foreign language learning (Technical report No.9), pp. 1- 63, Honolulu,
University of Hawai,.
97. Schmidt, R, 2001. Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction, pp. 3-32. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
98. Schmidt, R, 2010. Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language
learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T.
Suthiwan, & I. Walker, Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010, Singapore, December 2-4, pp.
721-737. Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language
Studies.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
49
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
99. Sergeant, S, 2001. CALL innovation in the EFL curriculum. In D. R. Hall and A.
Hewings (Eds). Innovation in English teaching. London: Routledge.
100.
EFL
Shawish, J, A, & Abdelraheem, M, A, 2010. An investigation of Palestinian
majors’
writing
apprehension:
Causes
and
remedies.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512894.pdf
101.
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, doi: 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
102.
Sheen, Y, Wright, D, & Moldawa, A, 2009. Differential effects of focused
and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by
adult ESL learners. System, 37(4): 556–569, doi: 10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
103.
Shinge, M, 2005. Interplay among anxiety, motivation, and autonomy in second
language learners of French: A quantitative and qualitative study, PhD Dissertation,
University of Florida. http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0011620/shinge_m.pdf
104.
Which
Spratt, M, Humphreys, G, & Chan, V, 2002. Autonomy and motivation:
comes
first?
Language
Teaching
Research,
6(3):
245-266,
doi:
10.1191/1362168802lr106oa
105.
Thanasoulas, D, 2000. What is learner autonomy and how can it be
fostered? The Internet TESL Journal, 6(11). http://iteslj.org/Articles/ThanasoulasAutonomy.html
106.
of
Thomas, J, 2004. Using computers in correcting written work. The Journal
Teaching
English
with
Technology,
4(3):
1–8.
www.tewtjournal.org/vol%204/issue%203/06_usingcomputersin.pdf
107.
Thorpe, K, 2004. Reflective learning journals: From concept to practice.
Reflective Practice 5(3): 327-343, doi: 10.1080/1462394042000270655
108.
Tomlin, R & Villa, V, 1994. Attention in cognitive science and second
language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2): 183–203, doi:
10.1017/S0272263100012870
109.
Trevino,
L,
&
Webster,
J,
1992.
Flow
in
computer-mediated
communication: Electronic mail and voice mail evaluation and impacts.
Communication Research, 19(5): 539–573, doi: 10.1177/009365092019005001
110.
Tsao, J, Tseng, W, & Wang, C, 2017. Anxiety and motivation on EFL
college students self-evaluative judgments of corrective feedback. Psychological
Reports, 0(0) 1–23, doi: 10.1177/0033294116687123
111.
Van Beuningan, C, de Jong, N, H,, & Kuiken, F, 2008. The effect of direct
and indirect corrective feedback on L
learners
written accuracy. ITL
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156: 279–296, doi: 10.1075/itl.156.24beu
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
50
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
112.
Warschauer, M, 2005. Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In J. L. Egbert,
& G. M. Petrie, (Eds.) CALL research perspectives, pp. 41-52. Mahwah, New Jersey,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
113.
Warschauer, M, & Healey, D, 1998. Computers and language learning: An
overview. Language Teaching, 31(2): 57-71, doi: 10.1017/S0261444800012970
114.
Warschauer, M, Turbee L, & Roberts, B, 1996. Computer learning
networks and student empowerment. System, 24(1): 1-14, doi: 10.1016/0346251X(95)00049-P
115.
of
Yoshihara, R, 2008. The bridge between students and teachers: The effect
dialogue
journal
writing.
Language
Teacher,
32(11):
3-7.
http://jalt-
publications.org/files/pdf-article/32.11art1.pdf
116.
Zubizarreta, J, 2009. The learning portfolio: Reflective practice for improving
student learning. (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
51
Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh
THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATION OF REFLECTIVE NOTES WITH CALL ON
EFL LE‚RNERS WRITING ‚CCUR‚CY
Creative Commons licensing terms
Authors will retain the copyright of their published articles agreeing that a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) terms
will be applied to their work. Under the terms of this license, no permission is required from the author(s) or publisher for members of the community
to copy, distribute, transmit or adapt the article content, providing a proper, prominent and unambiguous attribution to the authors in a manner that
makes clear that the materials are being reused under permission of a Creative Commons License. Views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this
research article are views, opinions and conclusions of the author(s). Open Access Publishing Group and European Journal of English Language
Teaching shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability caused in relation to/arising out of conflict of interests, copyright
violations and inappropriate or inaccurate use of any kind content related or integrated on the research work. All the published works are meeting the
Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and noncommercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
52