A Comparative Study on Monologic vs. Dialogic Technology-Mediated Feedback Modalities: Students' Uptake and Perspectives

Guardat en:
Dades bibliogràfiques
Publicat a:JALT CALL Journal vol. 21, no. 1 (2025)
Autor principal: Kazemi, Maryam
Altres autors: Saadat, Mahboobeh, Wilson, Joshua, Rahimi, Mohammad
Publicat:
JALT CALL SIG
Matèries:
Accés en línia:Citation/Abstract
Full text outside of ProQuest
Etiquetes: Afegir etiqueta
Sense etiquetes, Sigues el primer a etiquetar aquest registre!

MARC

LEADER 00000nab a2200000uu 4500
001 3206897703
003 UK-CbPIL
022 |a 1832-4215 
035 |a 3206897703 
045 2 |b d20250101  |b d20251231 
084 |a EJ1467806 
100 1 |a Kazemi, Maryam 
245 1 |a A Comparative Study on Monologic vs. Dialogic Technology-Mediated Feedback Modalities: Students' Uptake and Perspectives 
260 |b JALT CALL SIG  |c 2025 
513 |a Tests/Questionnaires Report Article 
520 3 |a Investigating how learners incorporate feedback into drafts is crucial, as feedback alone does not ensure effective implementation. Writing instructors can offer technology-mediated feedback rather than traditional methods, a practice supported by current research, for managing feedback processes and improving uptake. Consequently, this study compares screencast feedback (monologic) and online one-on-one video conference feedback (dialogic) on literature reviews (LRs) of 10 students in an L2 academic writing class. Over five weeks, half the students received one-on-one video conference feedback for their first draft and screencast feedback for the second draft, while the others received feedback in reverse order and then revised their drafts. Quantitative analysis showed a significant success rate difference favoring one-on-one video conference feedback, confirmed by Chi-square tests. This feedback was especially effective in content clarity, content development, cohesion, and coherence. Qualitative student interviews revealed the usefulness of both feedback types, with one-on-one video conference feedback proving superior for communication and comprehension. Findings suggest there may be some efficiencies if instructors could incorporate both types yet save more time-consuming, effortful modalities (one-on-one) to address vital issues. Hence, language instructors should consider these approaches as complementary rather than competing technology tools. 
651 4 |a Iran 
653 |a Comparative Analysis 
653 |a Feedback (Response) 
653 |a Videoconferencing 
653 |a Writing Instruction 
653 |a Teaching Methods 
653 |a Writing Processes 
653 |a Revision (Written Composition) 
653 |a Literature Reviews 
653 |a Second Language Learning 
653 |a Second Language Instruction 
653 |a English (Second Language) 
653 |a English for Academic Purposes 
653 |a Foreign Countries 
653 |a Student Attitudes 
653 |a Dialogs (Language) 
653 |a Language Teachers 
653 |a Teacher Education Programs 
653 |a Graduate Students 
653 |a Masters Programs 
700 1 |a Saadat, Mahboobeh 
700 1 |a Wilson, Joshua 
700 1 |a Rahimi, Mohammad 
773 0 |t JALT CALL Journal  |g vol. 21, no. 1 (2025) 
786 0 |d ProQuest  |t ERIC 
856 4 1 |3 Citation/Abstract  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3206897703/abstract/embedded/7BTGNMKEMPT1V9Z2?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full text outside of ProQuest  |u http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1467806