10.57647/jntell.2025.0402.09

The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Language Learning (TELL) and Formative Assessment Strategies on Iranian EFL Students’ Writing Self-efficacy

PDF
  • Shahrbanoo Parichehreh1,
  • Zari Sadat Seyyedrezaei*,
  • Ghasem Barani,
  • Omid Mazandarani,
  1. Department of English Language Teaching, AK.C., Islamic Azad University, Aliabad Katoul, Iran

Published in Issue 2025-09-26

Copyright (c) 2025 Zari Sadat Seyyedrezaei, Shahrbanoo Parichehreh, Ghasem Barani, Omid Mazandarani (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Parichehreh, S., Seyyedrezaei, Z. S., Barani, G., & Mazandarani, O. (2025). The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Language Learning (TELL) and Formative Assessment Strategies on Iranian EFL Students’ Writing Self-efficacy. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 4(2). https://doi.org/10.57647/jntell.2025.0402.09
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 362

Abstract

The investigation centered around the effect of BigBlueButton and formative assessment strategies (Mind Dump and Word Journal) on Iranian EFL students’ writing self-efficacy. Having utilized a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design, this study was conducted among 90 out of 120 participants selected via convenience sampling.  Quick Placement test was distributed to 120 students from English Translation and English Literature at Sari and Qaemshahr branches of Azad University. 90 Iranian sophomore students were chosen and divided randomly into Control, Face-to-Face, and BigBlueButton groups. Pupils in each experimental group (Face-to-Face and BigBlueButton) were categorized into two subgroups (Mind Dump and Word Journal) and provided with instructions in writing that incorporated Mind Dump and Word Journal strategies. At the same time, students were instructed without using these strategies and through traditional teaching methods in the Control group. Additionally, a Second Language Writing Self-efficacy questionnaire was employed to appraise students’ writing self-efficacy. Participants were distributed the questionnaire once before the instruction and once after the instruction. Bonferroni Post-Hoc Test analysis indicated writing self-efficacy of students using Mind Dump and Word Journal in BigBlueButton and Face-to-Face groups improved compared to those in the Control group. The writing self-efficacy of students in BigBlueButton showed a notable improvement when compared to those participating in Face-to-Face. Finally, this study’s findings might have implications for EFL teachers. Moreover, these findings suggest that educational institutions should consider incorporating such digital resources and creative teaching techniques to improve student writing self-efficacy.

Keywords

  • BigBlueButton, Mind Dump, Technology-Enhanced Language Learning, Writing Self-efficacy, Word Journal
PDF

References

  1. Alam. J., & Aktar, T. (2019). Assessment challenges and impact of formative portfolio
  2. assessment (FPA) on EFL learners’ writing performance: A case study on the preparatory
  3. English language course. English Language Testing, 12(7), 161-172.
  4. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n7p161
  5. Alberth (2019). Use of Facebook, students’ intrinsic motivation to study writing, writing
  6. self-efficacy and writing performance. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(1),
  7. -36.https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2018.1552892
  8. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy.
  9. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80-97.
  10. https:// doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.890
  11. Baleghizadeh, S., & Masoun, A. (2014). The effect of self-assessment on EFL learners’ self-
  12. efficacy. TESL Canada Journal, 31(1), 42-58.
  13. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavorial change.
  14. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
  15. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy Beliefs of
  16. Adolescents, 5(1), 307-337.
  17. Bandura, A., Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of
  18. Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87-99.
  19. Birjandi, P., & Hadidi Tamjid, N. (2012). The role of self-, peer and teacher assessment in
  20. promoting Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
  21. Education, 37(5), 513-533. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.549204
  22. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
  23. assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
  24. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education:
  25. Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
  26. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
  27. assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-144.
  28. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
  29. assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81–90. doi:10.1177/003172171009200119
  30. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy.
  31. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
  32. Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D. F. , McKim, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining
  33. dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 25-38.
  34. Butler, Y. G., & Lee, J. (2010). The effects of self-assessment among learners of English.
  35. Language Testing, 27(1), 5-31.
  36. Cauley, M. K., & McMillan, H. J. (2010). Formative assessment techniques to support student
  37. motivation and achievement. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
  38. (1), 1-6.https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903267784
  39. Chea, S. & Shumow, L. (2017). The relationships among writing self-efficacy, writing goal
  40. orientation, and writing achievement. In K. Kimura, & J. Middle camp (Eds.), Asian-
  41. focused ELT research and practice: voices from the far edge (pp. 169-192). Cambodia: IDP
  42. Education.
  43. Čižmešija, A., & Bubaš, G. (2020). An instrument for evaluation of the web conferencing
  44. system BigBluesButton in e-learning, in Central European Conference on Information
  45. and Intelligence Systems (CECIIS), 1-9,Varaždin.
  46. Crooks, T.J. (1988) ‘The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students’, Review of
  47. Educational Research, 58, 4.
  48. Ersanli, C. Y. (2015). The relationship between students’ academic and self-efficacy and
  49. language learning motivation: A study of 8th graders. Procedia Social and Behavioral
  50. Science, 199, 472-478.
  51. Fathi, J., Afzali, M.,& Parsa, K. (2021). Self-assessment and peer-assessment in EFL context:
  52. An investigation of writing performance and writing self-efficacy. Critical Literary Studies,
  53. (1), 211-232. doi:10.34785/J014.2021.172
  54. Fathi, J., Ahmadnejad, M., &Yousofi, N. (2019). Effects of blog-mediated writing instruction on
  55. L2 writing motivation, self-efficacy, and self-regulation: A mixed methods study. Journal of
  56. Research Applied Linguistics, 10, 159-181.doi: 10.22055/RALS.2019.14722
  57. Geranpayeh, A. (2003). A quick review of the English Quick Placement Test. Research Notes,
  58. (3), 8-10.
  59. Ghanizadeh, A., Razavi, A., & Hosseini, A. (2018). TELL (Technology-Enhanced Language
  60. Learning) in Iranian high school: A panacea for emotional and motivational detriments.
  61. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(4), 92-100.
  62. Ghanizadeh, A., Razavi, A., & Jahedizadeh, S. (2015). Technology-Enhanced Language
  63. Learning (TELL): A review of resources and upshots. International Letters of Chemistry,
  64. Physics, and Astronomy, 54, 73-87.
  65. Greenstein, L. (2010). The fundamentals of formative assessment. In What teachers really need to know about formative assessment. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/110017/ chapters/ The Fundementals of Formative Assessment. aspx
  66. Han, W. (2018). A fundamentals of financial accounting course multimedia teaching system based on based on dokeos and BigBlueButton. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in learning, 13(5), 141-152. doi:10.3991/ijet.v13i05.8433
  67. Han, J., & Hiver, P. (2018). Genre-based L2 writing instruction and writing specific
  68. psychological factors: The dynamics of change. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40,
  69. -59. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2018.03.001
  70. Lai, C., Lei, C., & Liu, Y. (2016). The nature of collaboration and perceived learning in wiki-
  71. based collaborative writing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32 (3), 80-95.
  72. Lee, M. K., & Evans, M. (2019). Investigating the operating mechanisms of the sources of L2
  73. writing self-efficacy at the stages of giving and receiving peer feedback. The Modern
  74. Language Journal,103(4), 831-847.
  75. Li, Y. (2023). The effect of online collaborative writing instruction on enhancing writing
  76. performance, writing motivation, and writing self-efficacy of Chinese EFL learners.
  77. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1165221. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1165221
  78. Lin, L. (2018). Digital affordances on Wechat: Learning Chinese as a second language.
  79. Computer Assissted Language Learning, 31, 27-52.
  80. Martinez, C. T. , Kock, N., & Cass, J. (2011). Pain and Pleasure in short essay writing: Factors
  81. predicting university students’ writing anxiety and writing self-efficacy. Journal of
  82. Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54, 351-360.
  83. Meusen-Beekman,K.D., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2016). Effects of
  84. formative assessments to develop self-regulation among sixth grade students: Results from a
  85. randomized controlled intervention. Studies in Education Evaluation, 51, 126-136.
  86. Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2006). A re-evaluation of the role of anxiety, self-efficacy,
  87. and their relation to reading and listening proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 29,
  88. -295.
  89. Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of
  90. literature. Reading and Writing Quarterl, 19(2), 139-158.
  91. Piniel, K., & Csizér, k. (2015). Changes in motivation, anxiety and self-efficacy during the
  92. course of an academic writing seminar. Moivational Dynamics in Language Learning, 81,
  93. -194.doi: 10.21832/9781783092574-015
  94. Rahimi, M., & Fathi, J. (2021). Exploring the impact of wiki-mediated collaborative writing on
  95. EFL students’ writing performance, writing self-regulation, and writing self-efficacy: A
  96. mixed methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning. doi:10.1080/0958821.2021.
  97. Raoofi, S., Tan, B. H., & Chan, S. H. (2012). Self-efficacy in second/foreign language learning
  98. contexts. English Language Teaching, 5(11), 60-73.
  99. Rasmussen, J. B. (2017). Formative assessment strategies. Retrieved from
  100. http://scholar.googleusercontent.om/schola,2017
  101. Ruegg, R. (2018). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on changes in EFL students writing
  102. self-efficacy. The Language Learning Journal,46(2), 87-102.
  103. Ruland, J. W. (2011). The impact of using formative assessment attributes in daily instruction
  104. on student affect( Doctoral dissertation). Chicago, Illinois: Loyola University
  105. Chicago. Retrieved from http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/44
  106. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional
  107. Science, 18, 119-144. doi: 10.1007/BF0017714
  108. Shadiev, R. ,& Yang, M. (2020). Review of studies on technology-enhanced language
  109. learning and teaching. Sustaiability. 12(2). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3390/
  110. su12020524
  111. Truong, M.H. (2022). Impacts of process-genre approach on EFL sophomores’ writing
  112. performance, writing self-efficacy, and writing autonomy. Journal of Languages and
  113. Education, 8(1), 181-195.
  114. Turulja, L., Kapo, A., & Činjarevič, M. (2021). Engage me through BigBlueButton: Student
  115. engagement when attending classes online is the only option. doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-4658-
  116. ch001
  117. Ukoh, C. (2021). As simple as pressing a button? A review of the literature on BigBlueButton.
  118. Procedia Computer Science, 197 (2022), 503-511.
  119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.167
  120. Von Glaserfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivisim: A way of knowing and learning. London,
  121. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
  122. Wiliam, D. (2007). Changing classroom practice. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 36-42.
  123. Yang, S., C., & Chen, Y. (2007). Technology-Enhanced Language Learning: A case study.
  124. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 860-879.
  125. Zhang, Y. (2018). Exploring EFL learners’ self-efficacy in academic writing based on
  126. process-genre approach. English Language Teaching, 11(6), 115-124.