The Effect of Conventional, Web-based, and Hybrid Teaching of Pre ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 4 (2), 393-401, 2013Table 6. Post-Hoc Scheffe Test Results for Comparing the Posttest Writing Scores of the Four GroupsMean95% Confidence Interval(I) Groups (J) Groups Difference Std. Error Sig.(I-J)Lower Bound Upper BoundCtrlConGWBGHG-2.04630*-2.35000*-4.43182*.69831.71133.73470.041.016.000-4.0342-4.3750-6.5234-.0584-.3250-2.3403ConGWBGHGCtrlGWBGHGCtrlGConGHGCtrlGConGHG2.04630*-.30370-2.38552*2.35000*-.30370-2.38552*4.43182*2.38552*2.08182*.69831.69087.71491.71133.69087.72764.73470.71491.72764.041.979.014.016.979.048.000.014.048.0584-2.2705-4.4207.3250-1.6631-4.15332.3403.3503.01044.03421.6631-.35034.37502.2705-.01046.52344.42074.1533Table 6 indicates that there is a difference between the control group on the one hand and the other threeexperimental groups on the other. Hence, the first question of the study is answered, i.e. teaching pre-writing astrategy appears to be quite effective.Moreover, among the three experimental groups, the difference between the conventional group and webbasedgroup fails to reach statistical significance. On the other hand, the mean score for the hybrid group issignificantly larger than the mean scores of both conventional and web-based groups. The second question of thestudy, as such, is also answered.To recapitulate, the analyses revealed that teaching pre-writing strategies to EFL learners is an efficaciousmethod of helping them improve their writing performance. Interestingly enough, no substantial difference wasobserved between conventional and web-based methods of pre-writing strategies instruction. Hybrid method ofteaching, on the other hand, was significantly more effective than these two methods.The results of the present study lend support to the findings of studies such as Sasaki (2000) which affirma positive effect for strategies-based writing instruction. This effectiveness can partly be attributed to raising theawareness of language learning strategies via explicit instruction, which is claimed to be the best practice instrategies-based instruction (Cohen, 2003). The results of this study, like the earlier studies on strategy-basedinstruction (as reported by DÖrnyei, 2006), offered a wide range of pre-writing strategies to choose from, andprovided the learners with controlled practice in the use of these strategies.In addition, as scholars such as Chu (2007), Cobat (2000), Sullivan (2006), and Zaid (2011) haveunearthed, the results of this study corroborated the premise that web-based second language writing instructionhas a facilitative effect. The reason why the students in the web-based group could not override those in theconventional group was probably that the former could not obtain as much feedback on their performance as couldthe latter. And this was a consequence of the mode of input delivery in the web-based method.Finally, the most promising outcome was obtained by the hybrid group that could outperform not only thecontrol group, but also the other experimental groups. The supremacy of hybrid teaching of pre-writing strategieswas previously confirmed by Ellis (2008) and the present study provided further support for her findings. As statedby Ellis and proved in this study, a hybrid format offers more effective ways to academic writing, vis-à-vis othermethods of teaching pre-writing strategies.REFERENCESAllen IE, Seaman J, Garrett R. 2007. Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: BabsonCollege Survey Research Group, Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering.Arnold N. 2007. Reducing foreign language communication apprehension with computer-mediated communication: A preliminary study. System,35: 469-486.Byrad D. 2010. Framing, reflecting on and attending to a rationale of teaching of writing in the second language classroom via journaling: A casestudy. System, 38: 200-210.Cabot C. 2000. The effects of the World Wide Web on reading and writing skills in a Spanish cultural studies course. ReCALL, 12(1): 63-72.Chamot AU. 2008. Strategy instruction and good language learners. In: C. Griffiths (ed.), Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Chamot AU. 2005. The cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA): An update. In: P.A. Richard-Amato & M.A. Snow (eds.),Academic success for English language learners: Strategies for K-12 mainstream teachers. White Plains, NY: Longman.Chamot AU. 1987. The learning strategies of ESL students. In: A. Wenden & J. Rubin (eds.), Learner strategies in language learning.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Chamot AU, Kupper L. 1989. Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22: 13-24.400
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 4 (2), 393-401, 2013Chuo TI. 2007. The effect of the WebQuest writing instruction program on EFL learners’ writing performance, writing apprehension, andperception. TESL-EJ, 11(3): 1-27.Cohen A. 2003. Strategy training for second language learners. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED482492).Cohen A. 1998. Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.Cohen A. 1990. Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. New York: Newbury House.Cohen A, DÖrnyei Z. 2002. Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles, and strategies. In: N. Schmitt (ed.), An introduction to appliedlinguistics. London: Arnold.Cresswell A. 2000. Self-monitoring in student writing: Developing responsibility. ELT Journal, 3: 235-244.Cumming A. 1995. Fostering writing expertise in ESL composition instruction: Modeling and Evaluation. In: D. Belcher and G. Braine (Eds.),Academic writing in a second language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.Cumming A, So S. 1996. Tutoring second language text revision: Does the approach to instruction or the language of communication make adifference? Journal of Second Language Writing, 5: 197-226.DÖrnyei Z. 2006. Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review, 19: 42-68.Dziuban CD, Hartman JL, Moskal PD. 2004. Blended learning. Educause, 7: 1-12.Ellis LV. 2008. Writing instruction and learning strategies in a hybrid EAP course: A case study with college-bound ESL students. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN.Grenfell M, Harris V. 1999. Modern languages and learning strategies: In theory and practice. London: Routledge.Griffiths C. 2008. Strategies and good language learners. In: C. Griffiths (ed.), Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Hacker DJ, Keener N C, Kircher JC. 2009. Writing is applied metacognition. In: D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (eds.), Handbook ofmetacognition in education. New York, NY: Routledge.Hedgcock JS. 2005. Taking stock of research and pedagogy in L2 writing. In: E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second languageteaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Kroll B. 2001. Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. In: M. Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreignlanguage. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.McCrory RS. 2006. Technology and teaching: A new kind of knowledge. In: E. A. Ashburn & R. E. Floden (eds.), Meaningful learning usingtechnology (pp. 141- 160). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Mekheimer M. 2005. Effects of Internet-based Instruction, Using Webquesting and Emailing on Developing Some Essay Writing Skills inStudent Teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cairo University.Nunan D. 1989. Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Nunan D. 1999. Second language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Oliver R, Harrington J. 2003. Exploring technology-mediated learning from a pedagogical perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 11(2):111-126.Olshtain E. 2001. Functional tasks for mastering the mechanics of writing and going just beyond. In: M. Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching Englishas a second or foreign language. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.O’ Mally JM, Chamot AU, Stewner,-Manzanares G, Kupper L, Russo R. 1985. Learning strategy applications with students of English as asecond language. TESOL Quarterly, 19: 285-296.Oxford R. 1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.Polio C, Williams J. 2009. Teaching and testing writing. In: M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (eds.), The handbook of language teaching. Malden,MA: Blackwell Publishing.Ransdell S, Lavelle B, Levy M. 2002. The effects of training a good working memory strategy on L1 and L2 writing. In: S. Ransdell & M.L.Barbiere (eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Richards JC. 1990. The language teaching matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Richards JC, Renandya WA. 2002. Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Rivers WM. 1981. Teaching foreign language skills. 2 nd edn. Chicago: The Univesity of Chicago Press.Rovai AP, Jordan HM. 2004. Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduatecourses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2): 1-13.Rubin J. 1987. Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history ans typology. In: A. Wenden, A. and J. Rubin (eds), Learnerstrategies in language learning. London: Prentice Hall International.Sasaki M. 2000. Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3): 259-291.Sengupta S. 2000. An investigation into the effects of revision strategy instruction on L2 secondary school learners. System, 28(1): 97-113.Serdyukov P, Hill R. 2004, November. Masonry of e-learning: Managing knowledge construction and skill development in an online course.Proceedings of E-Learn Worlds Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare& Higher education, Washington, D.C.Silva T, Matsuda PK. 2002. Writing. In: N. Schmitt (ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics . New York, NY: Arnold Publishers.Sotillo S. M. 2000. Discourse functions and syntactic complexity of synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning andTechnology, 4(1): 82-119.Sullivan IO. 2006. Learners’ writing skills in French: Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1): 49-68.Tarone E. 1980. Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30: 417-431.Tu CH. 2005. From presentation to interaction: New goals for online learning technologies. Educational Media International, 42(3): 189-206.Zaid MA. 2011. Effects of web-based pre-writing activities on college EFL students’ writing performance and their writing apprehension. Journalof King Saud University – Languages and Translation, 23(2): 77-85.Zamel V. 1985. Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1): 79-102.Zhu W. 2004. Faculty views on the importance of writing, nature of academic writing, and teaching and responding to writing in disciplines.Journal of Second Language Writing, 13: 29-48.401
Page 1 and 2: International Research Journal of A
Page 3 and 4: Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol
Page 5 and 6: Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol
Page 7: Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol

The Effect of Conventional, Web-based, and Hybrid Teaching of Pre ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?