You are here:

ICT and Feedback Practices in the Lower-Secondary Foreign Language Classroom
Proceeding

, Aarhus University, School of Communication and Culture, Denmark

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Vancouver, BC, Canada ISBN 978-1-939797-24-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

A central part of language teachers’ work consists in providing written corrective feedback for their students using well-known pen-and-paper practices, and they are often unsure of the return on their investment of time in this task. This article will describe the results of a survey among close to 300 Danish teachers of lower-secondary EFL aimed at uncovering their practices, not least the role of ICT in their work. The results indicate that they use ICT much less in this part of their work than in others, depriving both teachers and students of the benefits that technology can provide. The article also presents and discusses some of the advantages that may result from increasing the adequate uses of ICT in this aspect of (foreign) language teaching.

Citation

Kjaergaard, H.W. (2016). ICT and Feedback Practices in the Lower-Secondary Foreign Language Classroom. In Proceedings of EdMedia 2016--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1057-1066). Vancouver, BC, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 31, 2024 from .

© 2016 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. AbuSeileek, A.F. (2013). Using track changes and word processor to provide corrective feedback to learners in writing: Corrective feedback to learners in writing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(4), 319–333.
  2. AbuSeileek, A.F., & Al-Olimat, S.I. (2015). Using Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback Modes in Developing Students’ Writing Performance. Teaching English with Technology, (3), 3–30.
  3. Albion, P.R., Tondeur, J., Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Peeraer, J. (2015). Teachers’ professional development for ICT integration: Towards a reciprocal relationship between research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 655–673. Http://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9401-9
  4. Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2009). Collaborative writing in wikis: Insights from culture projects in intermediate German classes. Retrieved from http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/ling_fac/14/?utm_source=pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu%2Fling_fac %2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
  5. Beatty, K. (2010). Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning (2nd ed). Harlow, England; New York: Longman.
  6. Binglan, Z., & Jia, C. (2010). The impact of teacher feedback on the long-term improvement in the accuracy of EFL student writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(2), 28–30.
  7. Bitchener, J. (2012). Written corrective feedback for L2 development: current knowledge and future research. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 855–860.
  8. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York; London: Routledge.
  9. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204–211.
  10. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217.
  11. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol ; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
  12. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: research and practice. London: Continuum.
  13. Campbell, N., & Fauster, J.S. (2013). Learner-centred Feedback on Writing: Feedback as Dialogue. In M. Reitbauer, N. Campbell, S. Mercer, J.S. Fauster, & R. Vaupetisch (Eds.), Feedback Matters: Current Feedback Practices in the EFL Classroom. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  14. Caviglia, F., & Neutzky-Wulff, C. (2014). Det digitale læringsrum. In H.L. Andersen, S.S. Fernández, D. Fristrup, & B. Henriksen (Eds.), Fremmedsprog i gymnasiet. Teori, praksis og udsyn. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
  15. Chapelle, C.A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut. (2009). It i skolen: undersøgelse af erfaringer og perspektiver. Kbh.; [Haslev]: Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut ; [eksp. NBC].
  17. Depieri, T. (2015). The effects of using correction codes and redrafting on intermediate students’ writing. Cambridge English: Research Notes, (61), 15–25.
  18. Elicker, M., & Fürstenberg, U. (2013). Feedback in Student Writing: A Closer Look at Code-Marking. In M. Reitbauer, C. Campbell, S. Mercer, J. Fauster, & R. Vaupetisch (Eds.), Feedback matters: Current feedback practices in the EFL classroom. Peter Lang.
  19. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339–368.
  20. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as aforeign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371.
  21. Ferreira, D. (2013). Written Corrective Feedback and Peer Review in the BYOD Classroom (pp. 86–92). Researchpublishing.net.
  22. Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  23. Ferris, D.R. (1997). The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315.
  24. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Retrieved from https://www.statsbiblioteket.dk/au/#/search?query=recordID%3A%22sb_27001%22
  25. GradeMark. (2016). Oakland, CA: Turnitin.
  26. Hairston, M. (1986). On not being a composition slave. In C.W. Bridges& T.A. Lopez (Eds.), Training the new teacher of college composition (pp. 117–124). Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.
  27. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
  28. Henriksen, B. (2014). Sprogsyn og læringssyn. In H.L. Andersen, S.S. Fernández, D. Fristrup, & Henriksen, Birgit (Eds.), Fremmedsprog i gymnasiet. Teori, praksis og udsyn. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Holmes, M. (2009). Markin https://www.cict.co.uk/markin/index.php
  29. KungFu Writing. (2016). Helsinki: FINNED OY. Retrieved from http://kungfuwriting.com
  30. Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8(3), 216–237.
  31. Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285–312.
  32. Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22(2), 1–16.
  33. Lee, I. (2009). A new look at an old problem: How teachers can liberate themselves from the drudgery of marking student writing. Retrieved from http://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/mq:36537/DS01
  34. Lee, I. (2011). Working Smarter, Not Working Harder: Revisiting Teacher Feedback in the L2 Writing Classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 67(3), 377–399.
  35. Lee, I., Mak, P., & Burns, A. (2015). EFL teachers’ attempts at feedback innovation in the writing classroom. Language Teaching Research, 1362168815581007.
  36. Lund, K. (2015). Fokus på sproglæring og pædagogiske implikationer for undervisningen. In Sprogfag i forandring-pædagogik og praksis (2nd ed.). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
  37. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.
  38. Mathisen, P. (2012). Video feedback in higher education– A contribution to improving the quality of written feedback. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(2). Retrieved from http://www.idunn.no/ts/dk/2012/02/video_feedback_in_higher_education_-_a_contribution_to_impr
  39. Rambøll Management Consulting. (2015). SurveyXact (Version 12.4). Aarhus: Rambøll Management Consulting. Retrieved from www.surveyxact.com
  40. Reitbauer, M., & Vaupetisch, R. (2013). Corrective feedback in the constructivist classroom. In M. Reitbauer, N. Campbell, S. Mercer, J.S. Fauster, & R. Vaupetisch (Eds.), Feedback Matters: Current Feedback Practices in the EFL Classroom.
  41. Sampson, A. (2012). “Coded and uncoded error feedback: Effects on error frequencies in adult Colombian EFL learners’ writing.” System, 40(4), 494–504.
  42. Stannard, R. (2015, December 11). How To Use Technology To Provide Feedback. Retrieved from http://eflmagazine.com/using-technology-to-provide-feedback/
  43. Straub, R. (1997). Students’ Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory Study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91–119.
  44. Tang, G.M. (1999). Peer response in ESL writing. TESL Canada Journal, 16(2), 20–38.
  45. Undervisningsministeriet. (2015). Vejledning for faget engelsk | EMU Danmarks læringsportal. Retrieved July 27, 2015, from http://www.emu.dk/modul/vejledning-faget-engelsk
  46. Undervisningsministeriet. (2016). Antal grundskoler-Ministeriet for Børn, Undervisning og Ligestilling. Retrieved April 19, 2016, from https://www.uvm.dk/Service/Statistik/Statistik-om-folkeskolen-og-frie-skoler/Statistik-omgrundskoler/Antal-grundskoler

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References