[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 20, Issue 2 (9-2017) ::
IJAL 2017, 20(2): 35-79 Back to browse issues page
Asynchronous Online Discussion Forum: A Key to Enhancing Students’ Writing Ability and Attitudes in Iran
Ali Akbar Jabbari , Mohammad Omid Mohammadi , Ali Mohammad Fazilatfar
Yazd University
Abstract:   (834 Views)
This paper focuses on the impact of an asynchronous online discussion forum on the development of students’ ability in and attitudes toward writing in English. Two groups of third-year students (N = 60) majoring in English were assigned to two treatment and control groups, each receiving different types of feedback. Students in the treatment group were required to participate in an online learning environment and exchange feedback with their peers, whereas students in the control group received the traditional face-to-face feedback provided by the teacher. The results of a pre-test, a post-test, and a survey revealed that students’ writing in the treatment group significantly improved, both semantically and syntactically, and they expressed more positive attitudes toward writing. The findings also indicated that as a result of engaging in the asynchronous online discussion forum and exchanging feedback with peers, students exhibited more control over their work, involved more effectively with the learning tasks, collaborated more with their classmates, and employed self-assessment strategies to independently revise or rewrite their work. The implications of the study offer guidelines to improve and facilitate writing skill in EFL contexts.
Keywords: Asynchronous online discussion forum, EFL teaching writing, L2 writing in Iran, Feedback provision
Full-Text [PDF 1237 kb]   (359 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2017/06/2 | Accepted: 2017/07/28 | Published: 2017/08/6
1. Al-Jarrah, R. S., & Al-Ahmad, S. (2013). Writing instruction in Jordan: Past, present, and future trends. System, 41(1), 84-94. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2013.01.016]
2. Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249.
3. Asoodar, M., Atai, M. R., Vaezi, S., & Marandi, S. S. (2014). Examining effectiveness of communities of practice in online English for academic purposes (EAP) assessment in virtual classes. Computers & Education, 70, 291-300. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.016]
4. Biasutti, M. (2017). A comparative analysis of forums and wikis as tools for online collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 111, 158-171. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.006]
5. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT journal, 63(3), 204-211. [DOI:10.1093/elt/ccn043]
6. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001]
7. Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: a systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1-18. [DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.06.001]
8. Casanave, C. P. (2009). Training for writing or training for reality? Challenges facing EFL writing teachers and students in language teacher education programs. Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp.256-277). NY: Multilingual Matters.
9. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296. [DOI:10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9]
10. Chen, B., Chang, Y. H., Ouyang, F., & Zhou, W. (2018). Fostering student engagement in online discussion through social learning analytics. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 21-30. [DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.12.002]
11. Cheng, K. H., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). Examining the role of feedback messages in undergraduate students' writing performance during an online peer assessment activity. The internet and higher education, 25, 78-84. [DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.001]
12. Cimasko, T., & Reichelt, M. (Eds.). (2011). foreign language writing instruction: Principles and practices. Parlor Press.
13. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155. [DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155]
14. Delahunty, J., Jones, P., & Verenikina, I. (2014). Movers and shapers: Teaching in online environments. Linguistics and Education, 28, 54-78. [DOI:10.1016/j.linged.2014.08.004]
15. Descoteaux, J. (2007). Statistical power: An historical introduction. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 28-34. [DOI:10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p028]
16. DeWert, M. H., Babinski, L. M. & Jones, B. D. (2006). Providing online support to beginning teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 311–320. [DOI:10.1177/0022487103255008]
17. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating corrective feedback. Studies in English acquisition, 32, 335-349. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263109990544]
19. Esfandiari, R., & Meihami, H. (2017). Impact of Direct Corrective Feedback (DCF) Through Electronic Portfolio (EP) Platform on the components of Iranian EFL Learners' Writing across Levels of Language Proficiency. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 36(2), 39-74.
20. Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 81104.
21. Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of second language writing, 22, 307-329. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009]
22. Gao, F., Zhang, T., & Franklin, T. (2013). Designing asynchronous online discussion environments: Recent progress and possible future directions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 469-483. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01330.x]
23. Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of educational computing research, 17(4), 397-431. [DOI:10.2190/7MQV-X9UJ-C7Q3-NRAG]
24. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional science, 28(2), 115-152. [DOI:10.1023/A:1003764722829]
25. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Attracting student participation in asynchronous online discussions: A case study of peer facilitation. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1111-1124. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.002]
26. Hewett, B. L., & Martini, R. H. (2018). Educating Online Writing Instructors Using the Jungian Personality Types. Computers and Composition, 47, 34-58. [DOI:10.1016/j.compcom.2017.12.007]
27. Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. The journal of the learning sciences, 14(4), 567-589. [DOI:10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4]
28. Hyland, Á. (2011). Entry to higher education in Ireland in the 21st century. Retrieved April, 11, 2012.
29. Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of second language writing, 7(3), 255-286. [DOI:10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90017-0]
30. Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of second language writing, 7(3), 307-317. [DOI:10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90019-4]
31. Kellogg, R. T., & Raulerson, B. A., III. (2007). Improving the writing skills of college students. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 237–242. [DOI:10.3758/BF03194058]
32. Knowlton, D. S. (2001). Promoting durable knowledge construction through online discussion. Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference. Retrieved May 22, 2011, from http://www.mtsu.edu/~itconf/.
33. Kuteeva, M. (2011). Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer–reader relationship. English for Specific Purposes, 30(1), 44-57. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2010.04.007]
34. Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140-149. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x]
35. Larson, B. E., & Keiper, T. A. (2002). Classroom discussion and threaded electronic discussion: Learning in two arenas. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(1), 45-62.
36. Lee, I., & Coniam, D. (2013). Introducing assessment for learning for EFL writing in an assessment of learning examination-driven system in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 34-50. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.11.003]
37. Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Learning through science writing via online peer assessment in a college biology course. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 242-247. [DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.004]
38. Limbu, L., & Markauskaite, L. (2015). How do learners experience joint writing: University students' conceptions of online collaborative writing tasks and environments? Computers & Education, 82, 393-408. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.024]
39. Loncar, M., Barrett, E., & Liu, G. (2014). Towards the refinement of the forum and asynchronous online discussion in educational contexts worldwide: Trends and investigative approaches within a dominant research paradigm. Computers & Education, 73, 93–110. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.007]
40. Manchón, R. M. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language, 61-82. [DOI:10.1075/lllt.31.07man]
41. McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
42. Murray, R., & Moore, S. (2006). The handbook of academic writing: A fresh approach. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
43. Naghdipour, B. (2016). English writing instruction in Iran: Implications for second language writing curriculum and pedagogy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 81-87. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2016.05.001]
44. Naghdipour, B., & Koç, S. (2015). The evaluation of a teaching intervention in Iranian EFL writing. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(2), 389-398. [DOI:10.1007/s40299-014-0191-4]
45. Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of second language writing, 8(3), 265-289. [DOI:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80117-9]
46. Reichelt, M. (1999). Toward a more comprehensive view of L2 writing: Foreign language writing in the US. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 181-204. [DOI:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80127-1]
47. Reichelt, M. 2005. English-language Instruction in Poland. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 215–232. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.10.005]
48. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 133-164.
49. Santa, T. (2008). Dead letters: Error in composition, 1873-2004. Hampton Press (NJ).
50. Schuster, L., & Glavas, C. (2017). Exploring the dimensions of electronic work integrated learning (eWIL). Educational Research Review, 21, 55-66. [DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.04.001]
51. So, H. J. (2009). When groups decide to use asynchronous online discussions: collaborative learning and social presence under a voluntary participation structure. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 143-160. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00293.x]
52. Syndicate, U. C. L. E. (2001). Quick placement test.?
53. Tarnopolsky, O. (2000). Writing English as a foreign language: A report from Ukraine. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 209-226. [DOI:10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00026-6]
54. Terrell, T. D. (1982). The natural approach to language teaching: An update. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 121-132. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06970.x]
55. Thomas, M. J. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351-366. [DOI:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.03800.x]
56. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing 16, 255–272. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003]
57. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58. Xie, K., Yu, C., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2014). Impacts of role assignment and participation in asynchronous discussions in college-level online classes. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 10-19. [DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.003]
59. Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of second language writing, 15(3), 179-200. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004]
60. Yang, S. H. (2016). Conceptualizing effective feedback practice through an online community of inquiry. Computers & Education, 94, 162-177. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.023]
61. Yang, Y. F., Yeh, H. C., & Wong, W. K. (2010). The influence of social interaction on meaning construction in a virtual community. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 287-306. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00934.x]
62. Yeh, S. W., Lo, J. J., & Chu, H. M. (2014). Application of online annotations to develop a web-based Error Correction Practice System for English writing instruction. System, 47, 39-52. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2014.09.015]
63. You, X. (2004). New directions in EFL writing: A report from China. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 253-256. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.09.002]
64. Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of second language writing, 4(3), 209-222. [DOI:10.1016/1060-3743(95)90010-1]
65. Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of second language writing, 10(4), 251-276. [DOI:10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00043-1]
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:


XML     Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Jabbari A A, Mohammadi M O, Fazilatfar A M. Asynchronous Online Discussion Forum: A Key to Enhancing Students’ Writing Ability and Attitudes in Iran. IJAL. 2017; 20 (2) :35-79
URL: http://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2823-en.html

Volume 20, Issue 2 (9-2017) Back to browse issues page
Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.15 seconds with 32 queries by YEKTAWEB 3855