Digital Feedback in a Crisis Period: A Study of Electronic Corrective Feedback on Ghanaian Students' Business Letters During the COVID-19
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53103/cjlls.v5i5.231Keywords:
Electronic Corrective Feedback, COVID-19, Online Learning, Ghanaian Students, Business Letters, Digital Literacy, Pre-and Post-Test ItemsAbstract
This study examined the efficacy of electronic corrective feedback (ECF) on the business letters of selected Ghanaian technical university students. A sequential exploratory mixed-methods design was used for this study. Thus, the study employed both qualitative and quantitative data. Consequently, 80 scripts from 40 students (i.e., 40 pre-test and 40 post-test scripts), and 20 questionnaire items from the same students were used. At the pre-test level, the participants composed one business letter each. Afterwards, the ECF intervention was applied to the pre-test items. Then, they were asked to write another letter at the post-test level. After the pre- and post-test activities were conducted, the participants filled out questionnaires. Therefore, the sample size (in terms of raw data) was 120. The research, thus, investigated the types of ECF provided by teachers on students’ scripts, students' perceptions of ECF, and its impact on their writing skills. Findings indicate that teachers primarily used MS Word's track change feature to provide direct ECF, focusing on vocabulary, spelling, concord, punctuation, syntactic, and semantic errors. Students generally perceived this ECF as beneficial, reporting improved awareness of writing errors and enhanced writing skills. However, challenges such as limited Internet access, delayed feedback, electricity fluctuations, and difficulties in reviewing the pre-test items were noted. The study recommends that educators adapt feedback strategies to suit online learning environments better, incorporating multimedia feedback and regular virtual check-ins to enhance student engagement and understanding. The findings contribute to the growing body of research on technology-enhanced learning and feedback, offering insights into the potential of ECF to support student writing development in Ghana and at technical universities.
References
Al-Olimat, S. I., & AbuSeileek, A. F. (2015). using computer-mediated corrective feedback modes in developing students’ writing performance. Teaching English with Technology, 15(3), 3-30.
Aristovnik, A.; Keržič, D.; Ravšelj, D.; Tomaževič, N.; Umek, L. (2020). Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Life of Higher Education Students: A Global Perspective. Sustainability, 12, 8438.
Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater V.2. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(3), 3-31
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
Beuningen, C. V. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1-27.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.
Bruce, W. L. M. (2017). The study of teacher written feedback: The effectiveness of electronic feedback on student writing revisions [Durham theses, Durham University]. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/12018/
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error correction for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.
Chen, B., Wang, Y., & Wang, L. (2022). The effects of virtual reality-assisted language learning: A meta-analysis. Sustainability, 14(6), 31-47.
Chong, S. W. (2019). A systematic review of written corrective feedback research in ESL/EFL contexts. Language Education & Assessment, 2 (2), 70-95
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd Edition). Sage Publications.
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49, 5-22.
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. Oxford University Press.
Elola, I. & Oskoz, A. (2011). Writing between the lines: Acquiring writing skills and digital literacies through social tools. 10.3138/9781781798294-008.
Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.005
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(2), 161-184.
Gillis, A., & Krull, L. M. (2020). COVID-19 remote learning transition in spring 2020: Class structures, student perceptions, and inequality in college courses. Teaching Sociology, 48(4), 283–299.
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(6), 3- 43
Hwang, H. & Höllerer, M. A. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis and its consequences: Ruptures and Transformations in the Global Institutional Fabric. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(3), 294-300
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman
Lamy, M. N. & Hampel, R. (2007). Online communication in language learning and teaching. Palgrave Macmillan.
Li, Z. & Hegelheimer, V. (2013). Mobile-assisted grammar exercises: Effects on self-editing in L2 writing. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 135–156.
Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2014). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation in language instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(4), 387-406.
Liu, J. & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193- 227.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in language development. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, (pp. 413-468). Academic Press.
Newall, N., Lewin, G. & Boldy, D. (2016). The importance of collecting pre- and post-intervention practice data when conducting a randomised controlled trial. Wound Practice and Research, 24(1), 7-13.
Nipaspong, P. (2022). The effects of online corrective feedback on university students’ self-regulation in writing. PASAA, 64, 23–51.
Owusu, E. (2017). The impact of corrective feedback on the writing of business communication students in selected tertiary institutions in Ghana [PhD Thesis, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra].
Owusu, E. (2019). Corrective feedback and its effects on memoranda and letters of students of Sunyani Technical University, Ghana. The International Journal of Humanities and Social Studies, 7(4), 206-219.
Owusu, E. (2020a). The effects of corrective feedback on the business communication texts of technical university students. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 4(2), 25-39.
Owusu, E. (2022). The use of MAF and BLAF analytical tools in assessing business communication texts. Open Access Library Journal, 9(e8468), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1108468
Owusu, E. (2023). The Perceptions of Selected Ghanaian Language Teachers about Virtual Teaching and Learning during Crises. Ghana Journal of Linguistics, Special Issue, 12(2), 80-94.
Owusu, E; Arthur, L. J.; Amofah, K. (2023). Cross-cultural communication strategies in the digital era: A bibliometric analysis. Virtual Economics, 6(2), 55-71.
Owusu, E. (2021a). A Study of the Grading of English Language Scripts of Technical University Students in Ghana. Language Teaching, 1(1), 1-11.
Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., & Huang, Y. M. (2019). A pilot study: Do students learn English with enjoyment in a CALL environment?. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(3), 456-476.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, (pp. 235-253). Newbury House.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
Ware, P. D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing (pp. 105-122). Cambridge University Press.
Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 157-180.
Yamashita, T. (2021). Corrective feedback in computer-mediated collaborative writing and revision contributions. Language Learning & Technology, 25(2), 75-93
Xu, X., & Li, M. (2018). The effects of computer-assisted language learning on vocabulary acquisition among Chinese EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(5-6), 714-736.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Edward Owusu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles published by CJLLS are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. This license permits third parties to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon the original work provided that the original work and source is appropriately cited.
