Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to explore how learners’ writing performance, self-regulation, and self-efficacy were affected by implementing computer-based feedback in writing classes. To do so, a convenience sample of 42 Iranian male upper-intermediate EFL learners were selected from two writing classes in a branch of Islamic Azad University. After measuring the proficiency level of the participant using the Oxford quick placement test, the two classes were randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. As a pretest and posttest, both groups took the writing test, the writing self-regulation scale, and the second language writing self-efficacy scale. In addition, they took part in 12 sessions where the experimental group received computer-based feedback through the application of Writing Planet, and the control group practiced the traditional approach. The results of MANOVA and paired-samples t-tests indicated that the experimental group’s performances on the writing test, the self-regulation and the self-efficacy scales improved significantly. The findings of the study highlighted the point that computer-based feedback is an appropriate alternative for traditional teacher-centered classrooms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abtahi, M., Abadikhah, S., & Dehqan, M. (2020). The influence of computer-based and collaborative handwritten peer feedback on the writing performance of EFL learners. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 7(3), 92–113.
AbuSeileek, A. F. (2013). Using track changes and word processor to provide corrective feedback to learners in writing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(4), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12004
Alberth, A. (2019). Use of Facebook, students’ intrinsic motivation to study writing, writing self-efficacy and writing performance. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2018.1552892
Appleby, J., Samuels, P., & Treasure-Jones, T. (1997). Diagnosys- a knowledge-based diagnostic test of basic mathematical skills. Computers and Education, 28(2), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(97)00001-8
Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater® V. 2. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 4(3), 1–30.
Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition—Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1272-9
Bailey, E. P., & Powell, P. A. (2009). The practical writer with readings. Ohio: Wadsworth.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. Henry Holt and Co.
Beishuizen, J. (2011). A conceptual framework for research on self-regulated learning. In L. P. Carneiro, K. Steffens, & J. Underwood (Eds.), Self-regulated learning in technology enhanced learning environments. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Bernacki, M. L., Aguilar, A., & Byrnes, J. (2011). Self-regulated learning and technologyenhanced learning environments: An opportunity propensity analysis. In G. Dettori & D. Persico (Eds.), Fostering self-regulated learning through ICT (pp. 1–26). IGI Global Publishers.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00014-2
Bridge, P., & Appleyard, R. (2008). A comparison of electronic and paper-based assignment submission and feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 644–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00753.x
Brunfaut, T., Harding, L., & Batty, A. O. (2018). Going online: The effect of mode of delivery on performances and perceptions on an English L2 writing test suite. Assessing Writing, 36, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.003
Caraway, K., Tucker, C. M., Reinke, W. M., & Hall, C. (2003). Self-efficacy, goal orientation, and fear of failure as predictors of school engagement in high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 40(4), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10092
Chen, C. F. E., & Cheng, W. Y. E. (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 94–112.
Chen, J., White, S., McCloskey, M., Soroui, J., & Chun, Y. (2011). Effects of computer versus paper administration of an adult functional writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 16(1), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.11.001
Chodorow, M., Gamon, M., & Tetreault, J. (2010). The utility of article and preposition error correction systems for English language learners: Feedback and assessment. Language Testing, 27(3), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210364391
Choi, I. C., Kim, K. S., & Boo, J. (2003). Comparability of a paper-based language test and a computer-based language test. Language Testing, 20(3), 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532203lt258oa
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
Coniam, D. (2009). Experimenting with a computer essay-scoring program based on ESL student writing scripts. ReCALL, 21(2), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344009000147
Dizon, G. (2016). A comparative study of facebook vs. paper-and-pencil writing to improve L2 writing skills. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1249–1258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1266369
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Ducate, L., & Arnold, D. (2012). Computer-mediated feedback: Effectiveness and students’ perceptions of the comment function. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across writing contexts and tasks (pp. 31–56). CALICO.
Elliot, S. M. (2001). IntelliMetric: From here to validity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Ellis, C., & Folley, S. (2011). Using student assessment choice and eAssessment to achieve self-regulated learning. In G. Dettori & D. Persico (Eds.), Fostering self-regulated learning through ICT (pp. 89–104). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12183
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375367
Fathi, J., Ahmadnejad, M., & Yousofi, N. (2019). Effects of blog-mediated writing instruction on L2 writing motivation, self-efficacy, and self-regulation: A mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2019.14722
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00042-X
Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903197883
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Geranpayeh, A. (2003). A quick review of the English Quick Placement Test. Research Notes Quarterly, 12(3), 8–10.
Ghazi, S., & Zamanian, M. (2016). The effect of asynchronous versus computer-mediated corrective feedback on the correct use of English articles in an EFL context. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 5(2), 169–181.
Gordon, W. (2013, July 12). Urban planet mobile to release its ground-breaking web-based English writing assessment tool for English as second language students. Retrieved from https://assessment-tool-forenglish-as-second-language-students-162203395.html
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 8(6). Retrieved from https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1625
Han, J., & Hiver, P. (2018). Genre-based L2 writing instruction and writing-specific psychological factors: The dynamics of change. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.03.001
Han, S., & Shin, J.-A. (2017). Teaching google search techniques in an L2 academic writing context. Language Learning and Technology, 21(3), 172–194.
Hashemi, M. R., Khodadadi, E., & Yazdanmehr, E. (2009). Learners’ evaluation of EFL writing tasks in Iran’s ESOL exam preparation courses. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 52(212), 77–106.
Hetthong, R., & Teo, A. (2013). Does writing self-efficacy correlate with and predict writing performance? International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(1), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v.2n.1p.157
Higgins, C. A., & Bligh, B. (2006). Formative computer based assessment in diagram based domains. Paper presented at the ITiCSE06: 11th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Bologna, Italy.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed., pp. 1–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Bridging the gap between expert-novice differences: The model-based feedback approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782564
Jacobs, H. L., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hugheym, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition. Rowley: Newbury House.
Jarvela, S., Malmberg, J., & Koivuniemi, M. (2016). Recognizing socially shared regulation by using the temporal sequences of online chat and logs in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 42, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.006
Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, M., Meschi, R. (2020). L2 writers’ processing of teacher vs. computer-generated feedback. Two Quarterly Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning University of Tabriz, 12(26), 175–215. https://doi.org/10.22034/elt.2020.11472.
Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers and Education, 104, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001
Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001
Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., & Foltz, P. W. (2003). Automated scoring and annotation of essays with the Intelligent Essay Assessor. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 87–112). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Lavolette, E., Polio, C., & Kahng, J. (2015). The accuracy of computer-assisted feedback and students’ responses to it. Language Learning and Technology, 19(2), 50–68.
Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. L. (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9153-6
Lehmann, T., Hahnlein, I., & Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Cognitive, metacognitive and motivational perspectives on preflection in self-regulated online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.051
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004
Liaw, S.-S., & Huang, H.-M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments. Computers and Education, 60(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.015
Lopez-Vicuna, I. (2009). The violence of writing: Literature and discontent in Roberto Bolaño’s ‘Chilean’ novels. Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies, 18(2–3), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569320903361838
Maftoon, P., & Pahlavani, P. (2014). The impact of using computer-aided argument mapping (CAAM) on the improvement of Iranian EFL learners’ writing self-efficacy. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics World, 7(3), 1–12.
McCormick, R. (2004). Collaboration: The challenge of ICT. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ITDE.0000026495.10503.95
Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2007). Self-efficacy of college intermediate French students: Relation to achievement and motivation. Language Learning, 57(3), 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00421.x
Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: A literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 576–600. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326083
Nagata, N. (1996). Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition. CALICO Journal, 14(1), 53–75.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Pahlavani, P., & Maftoon, P. (2015). The impact of using computer-aided argument mapping (CAAM) on the improvement of Iranian EFL learners’ writing self-regulation. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 34(2), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2015.3528
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement. In R. J. Riding and S. G. Rayner (Eds.), Self perception (Vol. 2nd). Ablex Publishing.
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual (6th ed.). Open University Press.
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. (2017). Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review, 22, 74–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.004
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). ‘If only I had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4
Rostami, A., & Hoveidi, A. (2014). Improving descriptive writing skills using blog-based peer feedback. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(2), 227–234.
Saricaoglu, A. (2018). The impact of automated feedback on L2 learners’ written causal explanations. ReCALL, 31(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401800006X
Schneckenberg, D., Ehlers, U., & Adelsberger, H. (2011). Web 2.0 and competence-oriented design of learning-Potentials and implications for higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 747–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01092.x
Scott, J. (2006). Socialist joy in the writing of Langston Hughes. University of Missouri Press.
Sherafati, N., Largani, F. M., & Amini, S. (2020). Exploring the effect of computer-mediated teacher feedback on the writing achievement of Iranian EFL learners: Does motivation count? Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4591–4613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10177-5
Soltanpour, F., & Valizadeh, M. (2018). A flipped writing classroom: Effects on EFL learners’ argumentative essays. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.1p.5
Tai, H. C. (2016). Effects of collaborative online learning on EFL learners’ writing performance and self-efficacy. English Language Teaching, 9(5), 119–133.
Torkzadeh, G., Chang, J.C.-J., & Demirhan, D. (2006). A contingency model of computer and Internet self-efficacy. Information and Management, 43(4), 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.02.001
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003
Vakili, S., & Ebadi, S. (2019). Exploring EFL learners’ developmental errors in academic writing through face-to-face and computer-mediated dynamic assessment. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1698616
Van der Kleij, F. M., Eggen, T. J. H. M., Timmers, C. F., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2012). Effects of feedback in a computer-based assessment for learning. Computers and Education, 58(1), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.020
Wang, Y.-J., Shang, H.-F., & Briody, P. (2013). Exploring the impact of using automated writing evaluation in English as a foreign language university students’ writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 234–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.655300
Wilson, J., & Czik, A. (2016). Automated essay evaluation software in English language arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality. Computers and Education, 100, 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.004
Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9080-9
Woodrow, L. (2011). College English writing affect: Self-efficacy and anxiety. System, 39(4), 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.10.017
Zarei, A. A., & Hashemipour, M. (2015). The effect of computer-assisted language instruction on improving EFL learners’ autonomy and motivation. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 40–58.
Zhang, X. (2017). Reading–writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development. Language Teaching Research, 21(2), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815623291
Zheng, C., Liang, J.-C., Yang, Y.-F., & Tsai, C.-C. (2016). The relationship between Chinese university students’ conceptions of language learning and their online self-regulation. System, 57, 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.01.005
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2(2), 173–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01322178
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A
Jacobs et al.’s (1981) scoring rubric.
Level | Criteria | |
|---|---|---|
Content | 30–27 | Excellent to very good: knowledgeable; substantive; thorough development of thesis; relevant to assigned topic |
26–22 | Good to Average: some knowledge of subject; adequate range; limited development of thesis; mostly relevant to topic, but lacks detail | |
21–17 | Fair to Poor: limited knowledge of subject; little substance; inadequate development of topic | |
16–13 | Very Poor: does not show knowledge of subject; non-substantive; not-pertinent; or not enough to evaluate | |
Organization | 20–18 | Excellent to Very Good: fluent expression; ideas clearly stated/supported; succinct; well-organized; logical sequencing; cohesive |
17–14 | Good to Average: somewhat choppy; loosely organized but main ideas stand out; limited support; logical but incomplete sequencing | |
13–10 | Fair to Poor: non-fluent; ideas confused or disconnected; lacks logical sequencing and development | |
9–7 | Very Poor: does not communicate; no organization; or not enough to evaluate | |
Vocabulary | 20–18 | Excellent to Very Good: sophisticated range; effective word/idiom choice and usage; word form mastery; appropriate register |
17–14 | Good to Average: adequate range; occasional errors of word/idiom form, choice, usage, but meaning not obscured | |
13–10 | Fair to Poor: limited range; frequent errors of word/ idiom form, choice, usage; meaning confused or obscured | |
9–7 | Very Poor: essentially translation; little knowledge of English vocabulary, idioms, word form; or not enough to evaluate | |
Language | 25–22 | Excellent to Very Good: effective complex constructions; few errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions |
21–18 | Good to Average: effective but simple constructions; minor problems in complex constructions; several errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions but meaning seldom obscured | |
17–11 | Fair to Poor: major problems in simple/complex constructions; frequent errors of negation, agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions and/or fragments, run-ons, deletions; meaning confused or obscured | |
10–5 | Very Poor: virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules; dominated by errors; does not communicate; or not enough to evaluate | |
Mechanics | 5 | Excellent to Very Good: demonstrates mastery of conventions; few errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing |
4 | Good to Average: occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing but meaning not obscured | |
3 | Fair to Poor: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing; poor handwriting; meaning confused or obscured | |
2 | Very Poor: no mastery of conventions; dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing; handwriting illegible; or not enough to evaluate |
Appendix B
An essay scored using the Jacobs et al.'s (1981) rubric.
Appendix C
Writing Self-Regulation Scale
Items | Not at all | A little | Adequately | To a great extent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Was the overall goal of the task clear and void of ambiguity to you as a learner? | ||||
2. Was the task appropriate to your current English proficiency level? | ||||
3. To what extent did the task help you to apply classroom learning to the real world? | ||||
4. Was the topic of the task stimulating and appropriate to your age and educational level? | ||||
5. To what extent was the topic familiar to you and related to your background knowledge? | ||||
6. To what extent were the instructions clear and concise? | ||||
7. Were the target reader and the features of the expected response (e.g., word/time limits, register) clarified in the instructions? | ||||
8. Were any sample texts provided for you either by the teacher or by the textbook? | ||||
9. Did you spend time on brainstorming, gathering information, or outlining before starting to write? | ||||
10. Did the teacher familiarize you with techniques such as listing or clustering the ideas, or ask you to share your ideas in groups? | ||||
11. Did you go through the second stage of putting ideas into sentences or paragraphs without concern for mechanics such as spelling or punctuation? | ||||
12. Did you revise your jotted down ideas to make sure of their sensibility and accurateness to the reader? | ||||
13. Did you receive feedback on content from the teacher or perhaps a peer in this stage? | ||||
14. To what extent did you edit your writing for grammar and structure? | ||||
15. To what extent did you edit your writing for word spelling? | ||||
16. To what extent did you edit your writing for punctuation, before submitting it? | ||||
17. Did you receive feedback on form from your teacher in this stage? | ||||
18, Did you read out your texts finally to the class or your peers? | ||||
19. Was the teacher's feedback on the completed piece of writing motivating? | ||||
20. To what extent did the task performance occur outside classroom environment (e.g., in a library or language lab)? |
Appendix D
Second Language Writing Self-Efficacy Scale (SLWSS).
Items | Strongly disagree | Disagree | No idea | agree | Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. I feel confident about writing in English | |||||
2. I know how to write well in English | |||||
3. I write in English with an underlying logical organization | |||||
4. If I put in the needed effort, I am sure I can become a good writer in English | |||||
5. I can write essays that are relevant and appropriate to the assignment | |||||
6. I present my point of view or arguments accurately and effectively when writing in English | |||||
7. I am sure I can do well on writing courses even if they are difficult |
Appendix E
Screenshots of the writing planet program.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sherafati, N., Mahmoudi Largani, F. The potentiality of computer-based feedback in fostering EFL learners’ writing performance, self-regulation ability, and self-efficacy beliefs. J. Comput. Educ. 10, 27–55 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00221-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00221-3