Abstract
This study compared the potentials of synchronous voice-based and asynchronous text-based computer-mediated communication (CMC) modalities in creating a medium for learner feedback and engagement in dialogic interactions as they face communication breakdowns. These potentials were evaluated in terms of the number of interactional language related episodes (LREs) and feedback types in learners' attempts for solving communication breakdown. This study also investigated if LREs and feedback affected the overall writing performance and its subcomponents. To this end, the collaborative writing performances of 40 Iranian English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners were assessed. Data collection from the participants included (1) an analysis of stored conversations in synchronous voice-based CMC as well as transcription analyses of asynchronous text-based CMC to detect signals of communication repairs and feedback types, and (2) writing performances on pre- and post-tests of writing. The results of chi-square analyses indicated significant differences in the frequency and types of LREs and feedback in research groups. Moreover, the results of the one-way ANCOVA indicated better writing performance on the side of the students in the asynchronous text-based CMC group. Findings imply that teaching practitioners make principled decisions on CMC modalities as an important affordance of twenty-first century literacy and pedagogy.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- CMC:
-
Computer-mediated communication
- EFL:
-
English as foreign language
- ANCOVA:
-
Analysis of covariance
- LREs:
-
Language-related episodes
References
Abe, M. (2020). Interactional practices for online collaborative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 100752.
Ajabshir, Z. F. (2019). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) on EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 169–177.
Akbar, F. S. (2017). Corrective feedback in written synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Studies in Applied Linguistics and TESOL. https://doi.org/10.7916/salt.v17i2.1222
Akiyama, Y. (2017). Learner beliefs and corrective feedback in telecollaboration: A longitudinal investigation. System, 64, 58–73.
Allal, L. (2000). Metacognitive regulation of writing in the classroom. Metalinguistic Activity in Learning to Write, 6, 145–166.
Al-Maroof, R., Al-Qaysi, N., Salloum, S. A., & Al-Emran, M. (2021). Blended learning acceptance: A systematic review of information systems models. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09519-0
Al-Maroof, R. A., & Al-Emran, M. (2021). Research trends in flipped classroom: A systematic review. Recent Advances in Intelligent Systems and Smart Applications. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47411-9_15
Arcos, B., Coleman, J. A., & Hampel, R. (2009). Learners’ anxiety in audiographic conferences: A discursive psychology approach to emotion talk. ReCALL, 21(1), 3–17.
Azkarai, A., & Kopinska, M. (2020). Young EFL learners and collaborative writing: A study on patterns of interaction, engagement in LREs, and task motivation. System, 94, 102338.
Barkaoui, K. (2007). Rating scale impact on EFL essay marking: A mixed-method study. Assessing Writing, 12(2), 86–107.
Bataineh, R. F., & Hani, N. A. B. (2011). The effect of a call program on Jordanian sixth-grade students’achievement. Teaching English with Technology, 11(3), 3–24.
Batianeh, A. M. (2014). The effect of text chat assisted with word processors on Saudi english major students’ writing accuracy and productivity of authentic texts. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 9(9), 32–40.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118.
Bromme, R., Hesse, F. W., & Spada, H. (2005). Barriers, biases and opportunities of communication and cooperation with computers: Introduction and overview Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication (pp. 1–14). Springer.
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2013). Interactional feedback in synchronous voice-based computer mediated communication: Effect of dyad. System, 41(3), 543–559.
Carr, T., Cox, L., Eden, N., & Hanslo, M. (2004). From peripheral to full participation in a blended trade bargaining simulation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(2), 197–211.
Chanski, S. (2015). Assessing writing through metacognitive and reflective practice. Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 31(1), 10.
Chao, Y.-C.J., & Lo, H.-C. (2011). Students’ perceptions of Wiki-based collaborative writing for learners of english as a foreign language. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(4), 395–411.
Chapelle, C. (2014). Learning through online communication: Findings and implications from second language research. Seminar series on researching dialogue and communities of enquiry in e-learning in higher education. University of York.
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.
Cho, M. (2018). Task complexity, modality, and working memory in L2 task performance. System, 72, 85–98.
Dallacqua, A. K., & Sheahan, A. (2020). Making space: Complicating a canonical text through critical, multimodal work in a secondary language arts classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 64(1), 67–77.
Diab, N. M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 24, 16–34.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318.
Elwood, J. A., & Bode, J. (2014). Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university EFL writing classes in Japan. System, 42, 333–343.
Ene, E., & Kosobucki, V. (2016). Rubrics and corrective feedback in ESL writing: A longitudinal case study of an L2 writer. Assessing Writing, 30, 3–20.
Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1–13.
Erlam, R., Ellis, R., & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41(2), 257–268.
Fan, Y., & Xu, J. (2020). Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50, 100775.
Gibson, A., Aitken, A., Sándor, Á., Buckingham Shum, S., Tsingos-Lucas, C., & Knight, S. (2017, March). Reflective writing analytics for actionable feedback. In Proceedings of the seventh international learning analytics & knowledge conference (pp. 153–162).
Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30–50.
Guo, Y., Xu, J., & Xu, X. (2020). An investigation into EFL learners’ motivational dynamics during a group communicative task: A classroom-based case study. System, 89, 102214.
Hunsu, N. J. (2015). Issues in transitioning from the traditional blue-book to computer-based writing assessment. Computers and Composition, 35, 41–51.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and students’ sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3–25.
Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations—and negotiated interaction—in text and voice chat rooms. Langauge Learning & Technology, 9(3), 19–98.
Jianling, L. (2018). The impact of face-to-face oral discussion and online text-chat on L2 Chinese writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 27–40.
Kim, Y., & Kang, S. (2020). Writing to make meaning through collaborative multimodal composing among Korean EFL learners: Writing processes, writing quality and student perception. Computers and Composition, 58, 102609.
Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 143–166.
Koltovskaia, S. (2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44, 100450.
Laflen, A. (2020). Using Eli review as a strategy for feedback in online courses. Assessing Writing., 46, 100486.
Lam, R. (2013). Two portfolio systems: EFL students’ perceptions of writing ability, text improvement, and feedback. Assessing Writing, 18(2), 132–153.
Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1–18.
Liu, F., Du, J., Zhou, D. Q., & Huang, B. (2020). Exploiting the potential of peer feedback: The combined use of face-to-face feedback and e-feedback in doctoral writing groups. Assessing Writing, 47, 100482.
Liu, H., & Song, X. (2020). Exploring “Flow” in young Chinese EFL learners’ online English learning activities. System, 96, 102425.
Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81.
Lluna-Mateu, F. R. (2006). Development of Spanish L2 competence in a synchronous CMC (chat room) environment: The role of visually-enhanced recasts in fostering grammatical knowledge and changes in communicative language use. Northwestern State University of Louisiana.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 2(2), 413–468.
Magnifico, A. M., Lammers, J. C., & Curwood, J. S. (2020). Developing methods to trace participation patterns across online writing. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 24, 100288.
Mao, S. S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback:(Mis) alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 46–60.
Martin-Beltrán, M., & Chen, P.-J. (2013). From monologue to dialogue: A case study on mediated feedback in a transnational asynchronous online writing tutorial. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 17(1), 145–150.
Mayo, Md. P. G., & Agirre, A. I. (2019). Task modality and pair formation method: Their impact on patterns of interaction and LREs among EFL primary school children. System, 80, 165–175.
McMartin-Miller, C. (2014). How much feedback is enough?: Instructor practices and student attitudes toward error treatment in second language writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 24–35.
Mohamadi, Z. (2018). Comparative effect of online summative and formative assessment on EFL student writing ability. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 29–40.
Mohamadi, Z., & Rahimpour, M. (2018). Task types and discursive features: Mediating role of meta-talk in focus. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 17–40.
Mohammadi, Z. (2017). Interactional complexity development, interactional demonstrators and interaction density in collaborative and e-collaborative writing modalities. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 36(2), 75–102.
Mondada, L., & Svinhufvud, K. (2016). Writing-in-interaction: Studying writing as a multimodal phenomenon in social interaction. Language and Dialogue, 6(1), 1–53.
Monea, B. (2020). Looking at screens: Examining human-computer interaction and communicative breakdown in an educational online writing community. Computers and Composition, 58, 102605.
Morris, F. (2005). Child-to-child interaction and corrective feedback in a computer mediated L2 class. Language Learning & Technology, 9(1), 29–45.
Mulligan, C., & Garofalo, R. (2011). A collaborative writing approach: Methodology and student assessment. The Language Teacher, 35(3), 5–10.
Nemec, E. C., & Dintzner, M. (2016). Comparison of audio versus written feedback on writing assignments. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 155–159.
Newman, R. (2017). Let’s talk talk: Utilising metatalk for the development of productive collaborative dialogues. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 1–12.
Nguyen, L. V. (2008). Computer mediated communication and foreign language education: Pedagogical features. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 5(12), 23–44.
Payant, C., & Kim, Y. (2017). Impact of task modality on collaborative dialogue among plurilingual learners: A classroom-based study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1292999.
Philipsson, A. (2007). Interrogative clauses and verb morphology in L2 Swedish: Theoretical interpretations of grammatical development and effects of different elicitation techniques. Centrum för tvåspråkighetsforskning.
Rabiee, A., Nazarian, Z., & Gharibshaeyan, R. (2013). An explanation for internet use obstacles concerning e-learning in Iran. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 361–376.
Rashidi, N., & Babaie, H. (2013). Elicitation, recast, and meta-linguistic feedback in form-focused exchanges: Effects of feedback modality on multimedia grammar instruction. Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) (Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities), 4(4 (69/4)), 25–51. https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=310589.
Rassaei, E. (2013). Corrective feedback, learners’ perceptions, and second language development. System, 41(2), 472–483.
Rassaei, E. (2019). Computer-mediated text-based and audio-based corrective feedback, perceptual style and L2 development. System, 82, 97–110.
Reynolds, B. L., & Anderson, T. A. (2015). Extra-dimensional in-class communications: Action research exploring text chat support of face-to-face writing. Computers and Composition, 35, 52–64.
Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers’ oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65–79.
Sadeghi, K., & Dousti, M. (2014). The effect of length of exposure to computer-based vocabulary activities on young Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary gain. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(8), 1692.
Sampson, A. (2012). Coded and uncoded error feedback: Effects on error frequencies in adult Colombian EFL learners’ writing. System, 40(4), 494–504.
Satar, H., & Özdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 595–613.
Shen, B., Bai, B., & Xue, W. (2020). The effects of peer assessment on learner autonomy: An empirical study in a Chinese college English writing class. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64, 100821.
Z Sherafati (2017) Theefffect of feedback modality on iranian intermediate EFL learners' writing performance quality. Unpublished MA Thesis. Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch
Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 517–538.
Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319.
Steel, C. H., & Levy, M. (2013). Language students and their technologies: Charting the evolution 2006–2011. ReCALL the Journal of EUROCALL, 25(3), 306.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 285–304.
Tai, H.-C., Lin, W.-C., & Yang, S. C. (2015). Exploring the effects of peer review and teachers’ corrective feedback on EFL students’ online writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 284–309.
thi Nguyen, H., & Langevin, A. (2016). Some interactional functions of text in a text-and-voice SCMC chat session for language learning. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 6(1), 1–23.
Tian, L., & Zhou, Y. (2020). Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context. System, 91, 102247.
Tolosa, C., East, M., & Villers, H. (2013). Online peer feedback in beginners’ writing tasks. IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 43(1), 1–24.
Torkaman, A., & Mohamadi, Z. (2018). The effect of input enhancement and elaboration techniques on learning discourse markers: A gender role study. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 36(4), 261–275.
Vygotsky, L. (1987). Zone of proximal development. Mind in Society: THe Development of Higher Psychological Processes, 5291, 157.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 364–374.
Wigham, C. R., & Chanier, T. (2015). Interactions between text chat and audio modalities for L2 communication and feedback in the synthetic world second life. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(3), 260–283.
Worajittiphon, K. (2012). Negotiation for meaning in synchronous EFL chat. Procedia Engineering, 32, 1157–1162.
Yanguas, Í. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 72–93.
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41(3), 691–705.
Yu, S., Jiang, L., & Zhou, N. (2020). Investigating what feedback practices contribute to students’ writing motivation and engagement in Chinese EFL context: A large scale study. Assessing Writing, 44, 100451.
Zeng, G. (2017). Collaborative dialogue in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face communication. ReCALL, 29(3), 257–275.
Zeng, G., & Takatsuka, S. (2009). Text-based peer–peer collaborative dialogue in a computer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context. System, 37(3), 434–446.
Zenouzagh, Z. M. (2020). Syntactic complexity in individual, collaborative and E-collaborative EFL writing: Mediating role of writing modality, L1 and sustained development in focus. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 2939–2970.
Zhao, Y. (2010). Communication strategy use and negotiation of meaning in text chat and videoconferencing. Cleveland State University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Topic familiarity questionnaire
These topics of topic familiarity questionnaire have been taken from authentic examination papers from University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations.
IELTS general writing task 2 topics | Very familiar | Familiar | Not familiar | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Being a celebrity—such as famous film star or sports personality—brings problems as well as benefits. Do you think that being a celebrity brings more benefits or more problems? | |||
2 | Unemployment is a phenomenon affecting the young people's life across the globe. What challenges do you think it may bring to society | |||
3 | In many countries, the amount of crime is increasing What do you think are the main causes of crime? How can we deal with those causes? | |||
4 | Some people believe that poverty is affecting all aspects of human right. Poverty is something more than the lack of basic needs. They consider cultural poverty as important as financial one. How do you define poverty? | |||
5 | Some people feel that entertainers (e.g. film stars, pop musicians or sports stars) are paid too much money Do you agree or disagree? Which other types of job should be highly paid? | |||
6 | Some people prefer to live in a house, while others feel that there are more advantages to living in an apartment. Are there more advantages than disadvantages of living in a house compared with living in an apartment? | |||
7 | Today more people are travelling than ever before. Why is this the case? What are the benefits of travelling for the traveller? | |||
8 | Some people think that sending criminals to prison is not the best method of dealing with crime. They believe, education and job training are far better ways to deal with crime and criminals. To what extent do you agree? Which types of education and job trainings should be provided? | |||
9 | Some people think the reason for divorce is marriage. Some other think that marriage itself is a must phase of a natural life and they believe divorce is not the first solution. What do you think about causes and effects of divorce and how it should be managed by couples | |||
10 | Some people believe that everyone should go to university, while others believe that it is not the best for everyone to go to university. Discuss both view and give your opinion |
Appendix 2: Sample writing task
A multibillionaire is dying because of old age. He does not have any proceedings to bestow his wealth. He decided to divide his wealth into two halves. One half will be bestowed to anyone who could provide a plan for spending the other half on his countries social disorders. If you are willing to have half of his wealth, how do you decide to spend the other half? Negotiate with your partner and write collaboratively an essay of 250 words on the plan you have for solving social disorder by the other half of the man's wealth.
Appendix 3: IELTS's rating rubric for writing performance
Band | Task response | Coherence and cohesion | Lexical resource | Grammatical range and accuracy |
---|---|---|---|---|
9 | □ Fully addresses all parts of the task □ Presents a fully developed position in answer to the question with relevant, fully extended and well supported ideas | □ Uses cohesion in such a way that it attracts no attention □ Skilfully manages paragraphing | □ Uses a wide range of vocabulary with Very natural and sophisticated control of lexical features; rare minor errors occur only as ‘slips’ | □ Uses a wide range of structures with full flexibility and accuracy; rare minor errors occur only as ‘slips’ |
8 | □ Sufficiently addresses all parts of the task □ Presents a well-developed response to the question with relevant, extended and supported ideas | □ Sequences information and ideas logically □ Manages all aspects of Cohesion well □ Uses paragraphing sufficiently and appropriately | □ Uses a wide range of vocabulary fluently and flexibly to convey precise □ Meanings □ Skilfully uses uncommon lexical items but there may be occasional inaccuracies in word choice and collocation □ Produces rare errors in spelling and/or word formation | □ Uses a wide range of structures □ The majority of Sentences are error-free □ Makes only very occasional Errors or inappropriacies |
7 | □ Addresses all parts of the task □ Presents a clear position throughout the response □ Presents, extends and supports main ideas, but there may be a tendency to overgeneralise and/or supporting ideas may lack focus | □ Logically organises information and ideas; there is clear progression throughout □ Uses a range of cohesive devices appropriately although there may be some under-/over-use □ Presents a clear central topic within each paragraph | □ Uses a sufficient range of vocabulary to allow some flexibility and precision □ Uses less common lexical items with some awareness of style and collocation □ May produce occasional errors in word choice, spelling and/or word formation | □ Uses a variety of complex structures □ Produces frequent error Free sentences □ Has good control of grammar and punctuation but may make a few errors |
6 | Addresses all parts of the task although some parts may be more fully covered than others □ Presents a relevant position although the conclusions may become unclear or repetitive Presents relevant main ideas but some may be inadequately developed/unclear | □ Arranges information and ideas coherently and there is a clear overall progression Uses cohesive devices effectively, but cohesion within and/or between sentences may be faulty or mechanical □May not always □ Use referencing clearly or appropriately □ Uses paragraphing, but not always logically | □ Uses an adequate range of vocabulary for the task □ Attempts to use less common vocabulary but with some inaccuracy □ Makes some errors in spelling and/or word formation, but they do not impede communication | □ Uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms □ Makes some errors in grammar and punctuation but they rarely reduce communication |
5 | □ Addresses the task only partially; the format may be inappropriate in places □ Expresses a position but the development is not always clear and there may be no conclusions drawn □ Presents some main ideas but these are limited and not sufficiently developed; there may be irrelevant detail | □ Presents information with some organisation but there may be a lack of overall progression □ Makes inadequate, inaccurate or over-use of cohesive devices may be repetitive because of lack of referencing and substitution □ May not write in paragraphs, or paragraphing may be inadequate | □ Uses a limited range of vocabulary, but this is minimally adequate for the task □ May make noticeable errors in spelling and/or word formation that may cause some difficulty for the reader | □ Uses only a limited range of structures □ Attempts complex sentences but these tend to be less accurate than simple sentences □ May make frequent grammatical errors and punctuation may be faulty; errors can cause some difficulty for the reader |
4 | □ Responds to the task only in a minimal way or the answer is tangential; the format may be inappropriate □ Presents a position but this is unclear □ Presents some main ideas but these are difficult to identify and may be repetitive, irrelevant or not well supported | □ Presents information and ideas but these are not arranged coherently and there is no clear progression in the response □ Uses some basic cohesive devices but these may be inaccurate or repetitive □ May not write in paragraphs or their use may be confusing | □ Uses only basic vocabulary which may be used repetitively or which may be inappropriate for the task □ Has limited control of word formation and/or spelling; errors may cause strain for the reader | □ Uses only a very limited range of structures with only rare use of subordinate clauses □ Some structures are accurate but errors predominate, and punctuation is often faulty |
3 | □ Does not adequately address any part of the task □ Does not express a clear position □ Presents few ideas, which are largely undeveloped or irrelevant | □ Does not organise ideas logically □ May use a very limited range of cohesive devices, and those used may not indicate a logical relationship between ideas | □ Uses only a very limited range of words and expressions with very limited control of word formation and/or spelling □ Errors may severely distort the message | □ Attempts sentence forms but errors in grammar and punctuation predominate and distort the meaning |
2 | □ Barely responds to the task □ Does not express a position □ May attempt to present one or two ideas but | □ Has very little control of organisational features | □ Uses an extremely limited range of vocabulary; essentially no control of word formation and/or spelling | □ Cannot use sentence forms except in memorised phrases |
1 | □ Answer is completely unrelated to the task | □ Fails to communicate any message | □ Can only use a few isolated words | □ Cannot use sentence forms at all |
0 | □ Does not attend □ Does not attempt the task in any way □ Writes a totally memorised response |
Appendix 4: Assumptions required by one-way ANCOVA
One-way ANCOVA assumes normality of the data, reliability of the instruments, homogeneity of variances of groups, linear relationship between the posttest (dependent variable) and pretest (covariate) and homogeneity of regression slope. The normality of the data was tested by computing the ratios of skewness and kurtosis over their respective standard errors. Since the absolute values of these ratios were lower than 1.96, it can be claimed that the assumption of normality was retained (Table 6).
The assumption of homogeneity of variances was probed through the Levene’s tests. Based on the results [F (1, 38) = 1.497, p = 0.229], it can be concluded that the two groups presented homogeneous variances. One-way ANCOVA has two specific assumptions: linear relationship between the dependent variables and covariate and homogeneity of regression slopes. The statistical assumption as no linear relationship between the covariate (pretest of writing) and dependent variable (posttest of writing) was rejected [F (1, 26) = 62.59, p = 0.000]. In other words; there was a linear relationship between the two variables. The interaction between the independent variables (groups) and the pretest of writing (covariate) was analyzed using Test of Between-Subjects Effects to test if the assumption of homogeneity of regression slop is met. The results indicated that there was a non-significant interaction between the independent variable and covariate [F (1, 36) = 2.08, p = 0.157, Partial η2 = 0.055 representing a weak effect size]. Thus it can be concluded that the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes was retained.
Appendix 5: Assumption required for MANOVA
Before discussing the results it should be mentioned that the assumption of homogeneity of covariance matrices was met (Box’ M = 11.42, p = 0.430) (Table 7).
Based on the results displayed in Table 8, it can be claimed that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met on task achievement [F (1, 38) = 1.65, p = 0.206], coherence [F (1, 38) = 0.996, p = 0.325], lexical range [F (1, 38) = 0.286, p = 0.596] and grammatical accuracy [F (1, 38) = 1.05, p = 0.311].
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mohamadi Zenouzagh, Z. Language-related episodes and feedback in synchronous voiced-based and asynchronous text-based computer-mediated communications. J. Comput. Educ. 9, 515–547 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00212-w
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00212-w