CALL for EFL Writing

7/25/2019 CALL for EFL Writing

1/13

The impact of computer-based instruction onthe development of EFL learners writing skills

A. Zaini & G. MazdayasnaDepartment of English Language and Literature, Yazd State University, Yazd, Iran

Abstract The current study investigated the application and effectiveness of computer assisted language

learning (CALL) in teaching academic writing to Iranian EFL (English as a Foreign Lan-

guage) learners by means of Microsoft Word Office. To this end, 44 sophomore intermediate

university students majoring in English Language and Literature at an Iranian university who

had enrolled in a course called Advanced Writing were randomly divided into two groups. As

a pre-test, a pen-and-paper writing task was given to both groups at the beginning of thesemester. The control group including 24 male and female students was taught based on

traditional approach while the experimental group including 20 male and female students was

taught based on CALL. At the end of one semester, a pen-and-paper writing task was given to

both groups. The results of the post-test revealed that the students who were exposed to

computer-based instruction outperformed their counterparts in terms of using appropriate

articles, tense, plural forms and spelling. Moreover, the students in the experimental group

produced paragraphs of higher quality. The findings of this study confirmed the efficacy of

computer-based instruction in the development of EFL learners writing skills.

Keywords computer assisted language learning (CALL), computer-based instruction, EFL learners,

writing skills.

Introduction

Although many scholars have widely emphasized that

computers have positive effects on the development of

all four language skills (e.g., Cheung & Slavin, 2012;

Lee, 2004; Li, 2006; Roed, 2003), computers are not

widely used at schools. Hence, computers are mostly

sent to homes (see Alston-Abel, 2009). Software in

this category, such as word processors, spelling andgrammar checkers, facilitate learners understanding

and manipulation of the target language (Li &

Cumming, 2001; Pennington, 2000; Warschauer,

1996). According to Fotos and Browne (2004), word

processors as pieces of software provide some facilities

which help users to improve their writing abilities.

Learners who compose by means of word processors

are privileged to receive feedback regarding errors

related to spelling, vocabulary and grammar. It means

that learners are guided to revise their written tasks

with less effort in comparison with those learners who

write on papers.There are two opposing viewpoints about the use of

computers in writing classes. One group of scholars are

optimistic about the positive effects of computer on the

development of learners writing abilities while the

other group of scholars believe that computer has nega-

tive effects on learners writing skills. The first group

of scholars (e.g., Jarom, Woodruff, Bryson, & Lindsay,

1991) asserts that word processors just enable

Accepted:01 March 2015

Correspondence:Amin Zaini, Department of English Language and

Literature, Yazd State University, Safaieye, Yazd, Iran. Email:

[email protected]

doi: 10.1111/jcal.12100

Original article

2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning(2015), 31, 516528516

bs_bs_banner
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/13

superficial revisions, not higher level revision, which

will lead to learners improvement in discourse fea-

tures and high-quality texts. Similarly, Chen, White,

McCloskey, Soroui, and Chun (2011), who examined

the effectiveness of computer assisted language learn-

ing (CALL) versus traditional approach of teaching

writing (pen and paper), proposed that learners were

more successful on most aspects of writing tasks when

they wrote on papers.

On the other hand, the second group of scholars

(e.g., Bernhardt, Edwards, & Wojahn, 1989; Li &

Cumming, 2001) believes that writing on computers

releases learners from rewriting a text for two or three

times (first draft, second draft, final draft), that is,

learners do not get bored with writing a text for several

times. Furthermore, they believe that computer-based

instruction improves the quality of written texts incomparison with those texts written by pen and paper.

Accordingly, de Beaugrande and Dresslers (1981)

definition of the quality of writing will suffice to clarify

this term: they believe that there are seven discoursal

features, namely cohesion, coherence, intentionality,

acceptability, informativity, situationality and intertex-

tuality, which qualify a written or spoken text as a

high-quality one.

Because of this fact that research in word processing

showed positive results in terms of writers attitudes,

text length, text quality and quantity as well as quality

of revisions, researchers have shown a strong tendency

to conduct studies on the effect of word processors (see

Pennington, 2004). Most importantly, word processing

is used by virtually everyone for composing. Spell

checkers and grammar checkers were brought in as

useful tools. The development of spell checkers in the

context of foreign language indicates that these tools

are of interest in a CALL setting (Ndiaye &

Vandeventer Faltin, 2003).

In addition, proponents of computer-based instruc-

tion have extensively recommended that this new

approach of language teaching has been effectivein teaching different skills to language learners.

Abuseileek (2012) found that undergraduate EFL

(English as a Foreign Language) learners who were put

in small groups of two to seven were successful to

improve their speaking and writing skills in computer-

based environments. Additionally, his study revealed

that the computer-based environment enabled the par-

ticipants to blind their identities and reduce their

anxiety during the process of communication. Like-

wise, Folkesson and Swalander (2007) suggested that

the extended writing in combination with the self-

regulated learning environment can help learners in

Grade 2 to promote their reading comprehension. In a

similar vein, Hertz-Lazarowitz and Bar-Natan (2002)

studied 599 male and female Arab and Jewish students

in Grades 5 and 6. The students put in three groups

received instruction respectively via: cooperative learn-

ing (CL), computer-mediated communication (CMC),

and the combination of CMC and CL. Their findings

revealed that the students who had received instruction

via CMC and CL outperformed those who had received

either of these two methods of instruction.

In the same way, a study conducted by Owston,

Murphy, and Wideman (1998) examined the influence

of word processing on the quality of writing and revi-sion strategies of 8th-grade students who had experi-

enced using computer. The participants were asked to

compose two expository papers on similar topics: one

written on computer and one written by pen and paper.

Papers written on computer were rated significantly

higher. By means of a longitudinal study, Li and

Cumming (2001) aimed to investigate whether word

processors could change a second language learners

writing process and improve the quality of writing

products. The results indicated remarkable advantages

for the word processing medium over the pen-and-

paper medium in terms of a greater frequency of revi-

sion made at the discourse and syntactical levels. Lee

(2004) studied analytic ratings of compositions written

by 42 international university students and found that

computer-generated products received remarkably

higher scores. Hetzroni and Shrieber (2004) investi-

gated the effect of word processors on promoting the

academic outcomes of three junior high school students

with writing disabilities including spelling errors, illeg-

ible penmanship, difficulties in copying text, and

writing incomplete and combined letters and words.

They concluded that computer-written writing activ-ities were more efficient to improve their writing skills.

Li (2006) investigated the influence of word process-

ing on the writing of students of English as a Second

Language (ESL) and on writing assessment as well.

They found that participants paid more attention to

higher order thinking activities while evaluating their

written texts in the computer session; they revised sig-

nificantly more and their computer-generated essays

2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

The effect of CALL on EFL writing 517


3/13

received higher scores in argumentation than the hand-

written ones. De Smet, BroeKKamp, Brand-Gruwel,

and Kirschner (2011) examined the effect of electronic

outlining on the quality of learners writing outputs

(Dutch learners); they studied how outlining influenced

perceived mental effort during the process of writing.

Furthermore, they need explicit instruction in order to

engage in planning. The findings of their study showed

that electronic outlining improved the quality of stu-

dents argumentative texts and decreased mental effort.

In addition, new forms of technology such as iPads

and laptops have been proved to be helpful. Berninger

et al. (2015) studied the effect of iPad computerized

instruction on students with specific learning disabil-

ities suffering from dysgraphia, dyslexia, and oral and

written language learning disabilities. The results

revealed that these Grade 49 students could signifi-cantly improve their receptive and productive skills at

the end of the semester. However, Cristia, Ibarraran,

Cueto, Santiago, and Severin (2012) suggested that the

use of laptops without monitoring of the parents cannot

be meaningfully helpful. Similarly, Hansen et al.

(2012) suggested that using laptops which are in vogue

in developing countries is not always as effective as it

is in developed countries.

The current study examines the extent to which

CALL as an approach, computer as a device and

Microsoft Word Office (MWO) as a word processor

(and actually a piece of software) can improve EFL

learners writing abilities. Moreover, this study sought

its purpose at tertiary level where all the students were

adept users who knew how to work with computers and

MWO. Likewise, they did not have any problem with

using keyboards and finding certain keys. Therefore,

this piece of research will shed light on the findings and

try to find a solution to improve EFL learners writing

skills. The contribution of this study will be of interest

to EFL learners to produce high-quality writing prod-

ucts and will be helpful for EFL teachers and university

instructors who teach writing courses. Hence, thisstudy addresses the following research questions:

1. Is there any difference between traditional approach

and computer-based instruction on the development

of EFL learners writing abilities?

2. Which approach of teaching writing is more effi-

cient to help EFL learners fix their errors pertaining

to tense, articles, plural forms and spelling?

3. Which approach of teaching writing is more effec-

tive at improving EFL learners writing abilities in

terms of quality?

Materials and methodsForty-four intermediate students who had enrolled in

Advanced Writing course at one of Iranian state uni-

versities participated in this study which was an action

research; they had already taken Oxford Quick Place-

ment Test. The participants were randomly assigned to

two groups, namely an experimental group and a

control group. The control group including 24 male and

female students was taught based on traditional

approach of teaching writing whereas the experimental

group including 20 male and female students was

taught based on CALL. MWO was utilized as the soft-ware. The decision as to which group would be the

experimental was also determined randomly. In other

words, the researchers tried to control for the initial

differences between the groups by the random selec-

tion and random assignment of the participants.

The topic assigned to both control and experimental

groups on the pre-test and post-test is as follows:

What are the causes of stress on students in high

school and college?

The required data for the current study for each

group were collected in this way: during the semester,

all the participants received instruction from the EFL

teacher (who was the same person for both groups), the

second researcher of this article. Throughout one

semester, the students in the experimental and control

groups were given instruction on issues such as writing

a topic sentence, limiting a broad subject into a topic

sentence, developing supporting ideas (examples,

details, anecdotes, etc.) related to the topic sentence,

and producing cohesive and coherent paragraphs.

Similarly, the students were introduced to rhetorical

patterns such as enumeration, description, cause-effect,

advantages and disadvantages, as well as comparisonand contrast which are most commonly found in

expository writing.

Furthermore, students had to write one task in the

class. In addition, another topic was assigned as home-

work. The students in the control group did their

writing tasks by means of pen and paper whereas the

students in the experimental group did their tasks on

computers. The students in both groups were instructed


A. Zaini & G. Mazdayasna518


4/13

and given practice on how to achieve paragraph coher-

ence and unity by using cohesive devices, discourse

markers, conjunctions and linking words. Conse-

quently, they learned how to communicate their ideas

and how to transfer their ideas into a written form.

They were instructed to read their paragraphs and

revise their writing tasks before submitting the final

drafts.

The students in the control group were exposed to

the traditional approach. In each session, they were

assigned to write one task in the class. At the end of

each session, after finishing their writing tasks, the

teacher collected their writing tasks. Next, she read the

learners writing tasks and provided comments and

gave feedback on grammar, diction, organization,

content and mechanics. Errors related to inappropriate

word choice, tense, article, verb form pluralization,word order, mechanics, etc. were underlined and the

correct form was written in the margin, or above the

erroneous word/structure. The writing tasks were deliv-

ered to the participants in the next session containing

feedback on how to develop a cohesive paragraph and

how to use correct grammatical structures, appropriate

vocabulary, etc. In addition, each student had to do one

task at home and hand it over to receive feedback from

the teacher based on the same procedure.

On the other hand, the writing class for the students

in the experimental group was conducted in the Lan-

guage Media Center. The students in the experimental

group, like the students in the control group, had to

perform one writing task during each session and one

at home (they had to write on screens; whether at home

or in the laboratory). Furthermore, the students in this

group were instructed based on the same book and by

the same teacher. The feedback which the students in

the experimental group received throughout one

semester is elaborated as follows.

First, MWO provided the students with automatic

feedback concerning the correct use of tense, articles,

plural forms, spelling (researchers four desired vari-ables), etc. It means that if the user writes incorrect

forms of language, the software alerts him/her to revise

those incorrect parts which are differentiated by squig-

gle red and green underlines. The students in the

experimental group benefited from the automatic feed-

back which MWO provided. If the user used an article

or a plural form in an inappropriate place, the software

alerted him/her to revise that part. At the end of each

session, the students in the experimental group saved

their writing tasks as a word document.doc file on the

desktops when they finished writing their tasks in the

class. Next, the teacher printed copies of all their

writing performances. Most importantly, the students

were instructed to write their assignments using the

computer at home and print a copy of their writing

tasks which they handed over to the teacher in the next

session. They delivered their writing tasks to the

teacher in order to receive feedback at the end of each

session. The students in the experimental group also

received feedback on their writing tasks related to topic

sentence, concluding statement, cohesion, coherence,

and errors pertaining to vocabulary and grammar.

Within the competence and interest of the students, the

researcher tried to give real-life topics in each session.

The topics which were assigned were the same for thestudents of both groups. Correspondingly, students

were exposed to interactive media technology. After

writing their assignments in class, they were asked and

had this opportunity to provide comments on their

assignments through LAN (local area network) system.

During this process, the instructor checked their activ-

ities and monitors to ensure whether they used technol-

ogy. Moreover, they were asked to provide comments

on their homework assignments through chat rooms,

e-mails or WhatsApp by means of personal computers,

tablets and mobile phones.

Each writing task which the students in the control

and experimental groups handed in for the pre-test and

post-test was examined and graded by the researchers.

After correcting each writing task, the researchers

counted both the total number of each variable and the

correct use of that variable. Next, in order to make the

data quantitatively measurable, the computed ratio for

each student was taken into consideration as raw score;

it was computed and expressed in percentage. First, the

correct use of each variable was divided by the total

number of that specific variable. Afterward, the quo-

tient for each variable and for each participant wasmultiplied by 100 in order to indicate it in percentage

terms. In this way, the raw score for each student, in

each group, for each variable was computed separately

out of 100. Then these raw scores (from 0 to 100) were

transferred to spss in order to conduct further analysis.

Each students writing performance related to the use

of articles, tense, plural forms and spelling was exam-

ined as follows:




5/13

1. Total number of articles

2. Total number of correct use of articles

3. The ratio of the correct use of articles to the total

number of articles (raw score)

4. Total number of tense

5. Total number of correct use of tense

6. The ratio of the correct use of tense to the total

number of tense (raw score)

7. Total number of plural forms

8. Total number of correct use of plural forms

9. The ratio of the correct use of plural forms to the

total number of plural forms (raw score)

10. Total number of spelling

11. Total number of correct use of spelling

12. The ratio of the correct use of spelling to the total

number of words (raw score)

The obtained data from these two groups of partici-

pants were analysed in two ways: (a) independent

sample t-tests were utilized in order to examine

whether there was a significant difference between

these two approaches of teaching writing, and (b)

paired samplet-tests were applied in order to compare

the performance of each participant in each group in

the pre-test and post-test exam sessions. Furthermore,

the quality of the tasks written by the students in each

group was examined in order to see which approach of

teaching writing enticed the students to elaborate their

ideas more fluently and accurately.

Results

The pre-test results

The output results obtained from spssrevealed that the

students in both groups were at the same level regard-

ing the correct use of the three variables. The results of

the independent sample t-test revealed that the partici-

pants in the control group performed better than the

participants in the experimental group regarding the

correct use of articles (p


6/13

correct use of articles which the students in the control

group significantly outperformed the students in the

experimental group.

The post-test results

The raw data from the post-test were fed to spss in

order to conduct the analysis. The results of the post-

test as illustrated in Table 2 reveal that the students in

the experimental group performed much better than the

students in the control group; they significantly outper-

formed the students in the control group in all four

measures. The differences between these two groups

were statistically significant in all four variables even

for the correct use of articles which the students in the

control group performed better on the pre-test. The

participants in the experimental group statisticallyoutperformed the participants in the control group

regarding the correct use of tense (p < 0.009), articles

(p < 0.041), plural forms (p < 0.017) and spelling

(p < 0.007).

Results of paired sample t-tests

In order to compare the performance of each partici-

pant with his/her performance in the post-test, two

paired sample t-tests were applied. In spite of the fact

that the students in the control group received feedback

and comments on their writing tasks, they did not

improve significantly regarding the correct use of tense

(p = 0.296), articles (p = 0.209) and spelling (p =245);

however, they significantly improved in the correct use

of plural forms (p


7/13

Table3.

PairedSamplet-testfortheStudentsintheControlGroup

Paireddiffer

ences

t

df

Significance

(twotailed)

Mean

SD

Standard

errormean

95%confidence

interva

lofthe

differe

nce

Lower

Upper

Pair1

Tensepre-test

tensepost-test

3.0

42

13.9

36

2.8

45

8.92

6

2.8

43

1.0

69

23

0.2

96

Pair2

Articlepre-testarticlepost-test

3.1

25

11.8

37

2.4

16

8.12

3

1.8

73

1.2

93

23

0.2

09

Pair3

Pluralpre-test

pluralpost-test

7.8

33

14.9

48

3.0

51

14.14

5

1.5

21

2.5

67

23

0.0

17

Pair4

Spellingpre-testspellingpost-test

1.2

08

4.9

61

1.0

13

3.30

3

0.8

86

1.1

93

23

0.2

45

Table4.

PairedSamplet-testfortheStudentsintheExperimentalGroup

Paireddifferences

t

df

Significance

(twotailed)

Mean

SD

Standard

errormean

95%co

nfidence

interva

lofthe

differe

nce

Lower

Upper

Pair1

Tensepre-test

tensepost-test

13.4

50

15.1

15

3.3

80

20.52

4

6.3

76

3.9

79

19

0.0

01

Pair2

Articlepre-testarticlepost-test

17.2

50

12.3

20

2.7

55

23.01

6

11.4

84

6.2

62

19

0.0

00

Pair3

Pluralpre-test

pluralpost-test

15.7

00

12.5

28

2.8

01

21.56

3

9.8

37

5.6

04

19

0.0

00

Pair4

Spellingpre-testspellingpost-test

8.6

50

10.2

97

2.3

02

13.46

9

3.8

31

3.7

57

19

0.0

01




8/13

Quality of the writing tasks

The quality of the writing tasks was also examined by

the researchers. The quality of writing is defined

according to de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) seven

features of discourse analysis, namely cohesion,

coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity,

situationality and intertextuality, which makes a text a

high-quality one. Furthermore, the quality of writing

was scored based on Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Faye

Hartfiel, and Hugheys (1981) ESL composition

profile. This construct contains five components,

namely content (30%), organization (20%), vocabulary

(20%), language use (25%) and mechanics (5%).

Hence, each writing sample was graded and given a

score out of 10 based on the above-mentioned factors.

Finally, the obtained data were transferred to spss inorder to conduct further analysis. At first, an independ-

ent paired sample t-test revealed that there was no

significant difference between the students of the

control and experimental groups (p = 0.121) in the

pre-test (Table 5).

During the semester, the students of both groups

received feedback, comments and suggestions from the

instructor concerning content, organization, grammar,

vocabulary and mechanics. In addition, the students of

the control and experimental groups were given

instruction on such issues as topic sentence, limiting a

broad subject into a topic sentence, developing sup-

porting ideas (examples, details, anecdotes, etc.)

related to the topic sentence, and how to create a cohe-

sive and coherent paragraph. Similarly, the students

across the two groups were introduced to rhetorical

patterns, such as enumeration, description, cause-

effect, advantages and disadvantages, as well as com-

parison and contrast, which are common in expository

writing.

The only difference between the instructions that the

control and experimental groups received was the

medium of writing. At the end of the semester, the rawscores from the post-test were given to spss and two

paired samplet-tests were applied in order to examine

the extent to which the students in each group could

improve the quality of their writing tasks in comparison

with the pre-test results. The results obtained from two

paired sample t-tests revealed that the students in the

experimental group (see Table 6) and the participants

in the control group (see Table 7) remarkably improved Table5.

IndependentSamplet-testfortheQualityoftheWritingTasksonthePre-TestAcrossControlandExperimentalGroups

Levenestestfor

equalityofva

riances

t-testforequalityofmeans

F

Significance

t

df

Significance

(twotailed)

Mean

difference

Standarderror

difference

9

5%

confidence

intervalofthe

d

ifference

L

ower

Upper

Qualityofpre-test

Equalvariancesassumed

0.8

18

0.3

71

1.5

83

42

0.1

21

0.4

292

0.2

712

0.9

764

0.1

181

Equalvariancesnotassumed

1.5

64

38.1

93

0.1

26

0.4

292

0.2

745

0.9

847

0.1

264




9/13

their writing performances in terms of quality at the

end of the semester. Furthermore, the eta square statis-

tics for the students in the control (0.94) and experi-

mental (0.95) groups indicated that very large effect

size revealed that the students in both groups weresuccessful regarding improving the quality of their

writing tasks in comparison with their performance in

the pre-test. This is due to this fact that the students

across the two groups received feedback and comments

regarding their writing tasks throughout the whole

semester.

However, an independent sample t-test applied in

order to compare the performances of the students in

the control and experimental groups revealed that the

students in the experimental group outperformed the

students in the control group by writing paragraphs of

higher quality. They could significantly improve the

quality of their writing tasks in comparison with that of

the students in the control group (p


10/13

that the students in the experimental group

outperformed the students in the control group as a

result of exposure to the immediate feedback they

received from MWO. The results of the post-test

revealed that there was a significant difference between

these two groups regarding the correct use of four

intended variables, namely tense (p < 0.009), articles

(p


11/13

(p


12/13

her with feedback and correction during the course of

writing; based on the limitations in time and human

resources, it is not possible to control the students

performances during the process of writing completely.

Consequently, providing the EFL students with tech-

nology (such as computers and tablets), and giving

them this opportunity to interact with sources of feed-

back and information is useful, feasible and effective.

References

AbuSeileek, A. F. (2012). The effect of computer-assisted

cooperative learning methods and group size on the EFL

learners achievement in communication skills. Computers

and Education, 58(1), 231239.

Alston-Able, N. (2009). Longitudinal trends in relationships

among home literacy practices, childrens self-regulation,

and literacy achievement outcomes(Unpublished PhD dis-

sertation, electrically posted and accessible). University of

Washington.

Bernhardt, S. A., Wojahn, P., & Edwards, P. (1989). Teaching

college composition with computers: A program evalu-

ation study. Written Communication, 6, 108133.

Berninger, V. W., Nagy, W., Tanimoto, S., Thompson, R., &

Abbott, R. D. (2015). Computer instruction in hand-

writing, spelling, and composing for students with specific

learning disabilities in grades 49. Computers and Educa-

tion, 81, 154168.

Chen, J., White, S., McCloskey, M., Soroui, J., & Chun, Y.

(2011). Effects of computer versus paper administration ofan adult functional writing assessment.Assessing Writing,

16, 4971.

Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. (2012). How features of educational

technology applications affect student reading outcomes:

A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7, 198

215.

Cristia, J., Ibarraran, P., Cueto, S., Santiago, A., & Severin,

E., (2012). Technology and child development: Evidence

from one laptop per child program. InterAmerican Devel-

opment Bank Department of Research and Chief Econo-

mist. Working Paper Series IDB-WP 384.

de Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction to

text linguistics. London: Longman.

De Smet, M. J. R., BroeKKamp, H., Brand-Gruwel, S., &

Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Effects of electronic outlining on

students argumentative writing performance. Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning,27(6), 557574. doi:10.1111/

j.1365-2729.2011.00418.x

Folkesson, A., & Swalander, L. (2007). Self-regulated learn-

ing through writing on computers: Consequences for

reading comprehension. Computers in Human Behaviour,

23, 24882508.

Fotos, S., & Browne, C. M. (2004). New perspectives on

CALL for second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty &M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language

acquisition (pp. 224255). Oxford: Blackwell.

Hansen, N., Koudenburg, N., Hiersemann, R., Tellegen, P. J.,

Kocsev, M., & Postmes, T. (2012). Laptop usage affects

abstract reasoning of children in the developing world.

Computers & Education, 59(3), 9891000.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Bar-Natan, I. (2002). Writing devel-

opment of Arab and Jewish students using cooperative

learning (CL) and computer-mediated communication

(CMC). Computers & Education, 39, 1936.

Hetzroni, O. E., & Shrieber, B. (2004). Word processing as an

assistive technology tool for enhancing academic out-

comes of students with writing disabilities in the general

classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 143

154.

Jacobs, H. J., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R.,

Faye Hartfiel, V., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing

ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA:

Newbury House.

Jarom, E., Woodruff, E., Bryson, M., & Lindsay, P. (1991).

The effects of revising with a word processor on writing

composition.Research in the teaching of English,26, 167

193.

Lam, F. S., & Pennington, M. C. (1995). The computer vs. the

pen: A comparative study of word processing in a HongKong secondary classroom. Computer Assisted Language

Learning, 8, 7592.

Lee, H. K. (2004). A comparative study of ESL writers

performance in a paper-based and a computer-delivered

writing test. Assessing writing, 9(1), 426.

Li, J. (2006). The mediation of technology in ESL writing

and its implication for writing assessment. Assessing

Writing, 11(1), 521.

Li, J., & Cumming, A. (2001). Word processing and ESL

writing: A longitudinal case study.International Journal of

English Studies, 1, 127152.

Ndiaye, M., & Vandeventer Faltin, A. (2003). A spell checker

tailored to language learners.Computer Assisted Language

Learning, 16(23), 213232.

Owston, R. D., Murphy, S., & Wideman, H. H. (1992). The

effects of word processing on learners writing quality and

revision strategies. Research in the Teaching of English,

26, 249276.

Owston, R. D., Murphy, S., & Wideman, H. H.

(1998). Word processors and childrens writing in a




13/13

high-computer-access-setting. Journal of Research on

Computing in Education, 30(2), 202220.

Pennington, M. C. (1996). The computer and the non-native

writer: A natural partnership. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton

Press.

Pennington, M. C. (2000). Writing minds and talking fingers:Doing literary in an electronic age. In P. Brett (Ed.), CALL

in the 21st century [CD-ROM]. Whitstable, UK: IATEFL.

Pennington, M. C. (2004). Electronic media in second lan-

guage writing: An overview of tools and research findings.

In S. Fotos & C. M. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on

CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 6992).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Roed, J. (2003). Language learner behavior in a virtual envi-

ronment.Computer Assisted Language Learning,16(23),

155172.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learn-

ing: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia lan-

guage teaching (pp. 320). Tokyo: Logos International.



Documents

CALL for EFL Writing