Language teachers’ perceptions of using Google keyboard in L2 writing

Year 2022, , 411 - 421, 31.05.2022

Mohammadreza Valizadeh

https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1060950

Abstract

Despite the growth of research on mobile technologies in educational contexts, research on language teachers’ perceptions of mobile technologies – particularly in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) – remains sparse. Hence, the present study explored EFL teachers’ perceptions of using Google keyboard (Gboard) for L2 writing instruction. The participants were two teachers who taught 47 intermediate Turkish EFL learners. Data were collected from the teachers. They were asked to keep a teaching journal and report their perceptions of Gboard implementation as well as the most distinctive lexical errors they deemed to emerge in the learners’ writing. Data analyses indicated that the teachers perceived the integration of Gboard into instruction as an effective intervention that assisted with enhancing the spelling accuracy of the learners. The implications of the study have been discussed.

Keywords

Mobile Assisted Language Learning, lexical errors, EFL writing, educational technology, Google keyboard (Gboard), teacher perceptions

References

• Abrams, Z. (2016). Exploring collaboratively written L2 texts among first-year learners of German in Google Docs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1259–1270. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1270968.
• Ahmadpour, L., & Yousefi, M. H. (2016). The Role of Mobile-assisted Language Learning on EFL Learners’ Development of Writing Accuracy, Fluency, and Complexity. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 3(4), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.30479/elt.2016.1581.
• Al-Hamad, R., Al-Jamal, D., & Bataineh, R. (2019). The Effect of Mall Instruction on Teens’ Writing Performance. Digital Education Review, 35, 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2019.35.289-298.
• Alharbi, M. A. (2020). Exploring the potential of Google Doc in facilitating innovative teaching and learning practices in an EFL writing course. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(3), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1572157.
• Andujar, A. (2016). Benefits of mobile instant messaging to develop ESL writing. System, 62, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.07.004.
• Arslan, R. Ş., & Şahin-Kızıl, A. (2010). How can the use of blog software facilitate the writing process of English language learners? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.486575.
• Chen, Y., Carger, C. L., & Smith, T. J. (2017). Mobile-assisted narrative writing practice for young English language learners from a funds of knowledge approach. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10125/44594.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. Routledge.
• Cremades, R., Onieva-López, J. L., Maqueda-Cuenca, E., & Ramírez-Leiton, J. J. (2019). The influence of mobile instant messaging in language education: perceptions of current and future teachers. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1612451.
• Dean, B., Zanko, M., & Turbill, J. (2015). Mobilizing PD: Professional Development for Sessional Teachers Through Mobile Technologies. In Y. (Aimee) Zhang & D. Cristol (Eds.), Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning (pp. 1–14). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_55-1.
• Duman, G., Orhon, G., & Gedik, N. (2015). Research trends in mobile assisted language learning from 2000 to 2012. ReCALL, 27(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000287.
• Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2017). Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using Google Docs on EFL learners’ academic writing skills: a mixed methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(8), 787–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056.
• Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393–447. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393.
• Estarki, N. K., & Bazyar, M. (2016). The Effect of MALL on Pre-intermediate EFL Learners’ Writing Performance. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 5(2), 406–420. http://european-science.com/eojnss/article/view/4621.
• Golpour, F., Ahour, T., & Ahangari, S. (2019). Iranian EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding writing activities and class organization. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1651812. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1651812
• Hawkey, R., & Barker, F. (2004). Developing a common scale for the assessment of writing. Assessing Writing, 9(2), 122–159. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2004.06.001
• Hemchua, S., & Schmitt, N. (2006). An analysis of lexical errors in the English compositions of Thai learners. Prospect, 21(3), 3-25.
• Hwang, W.-Y., Chen, H. S. L., Shadiev, R., Huang, R. Y.-M., & Chen, C.-Y. (2014). Improving English as a foreign language writing in elementary schools using mobile devices in familiar situational contexts. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(5), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.733711.
• Kashani, H., Mahmud, R. B., & Kalajahi, S. A. R. (2013). Comparing the Effect of Blogging as well as Pen-and-Paper on the Essay Writing Performance of Iranian Graduate Students. English Language Teaching, 6(10), 202–218. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n10p202.
• Keshavarz, M. H. (2012). Contrastive analysis and error analysis. Tehran: Rahnama Press.
• Lai, C., Yeung, Y., & Hu, J. (2016). University student and teacher perceptions of teacher roles in promoting autonomous language learning with technology outside the classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 703–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1016441.
• Lee, B. J. (2020). Smartphone tapping vs. handwriting: A comparison of writing medium. EuroCALL Review, 28(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2020.12036.
• Li, M. (2018). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: an analysis of empirical research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 882–904. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1465981.
• Li, Z., Dursun, A., & Hegelheimer, V. (2017). Technology and L2 Writing. In C. A. Chapelle & S. Sauro (Eds.), The Handbook of Technology and Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 77–92). https://doi.org/doi:10.1002/9781118914069.ch6.
• Li, Z., & Hegelheimer, V. (2013). Mobile-assisted grammar exercises: Effects on self-editing in L2 writing. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 135–156. https://doi.org/10125/44343.
• Liu, H., Tao, W., & Cain, W. (2017). Investigating Mobile Assisted English Foreign Language Learning and Teaching in China: Issues, Attitudes and Perceptions. In I. R. M. A. (IRMA) (Ed.), Blended Learning: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (4 Volumes) (pp. 1097–1115). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0783-3.ch054.
• Llach, M. P. (2007). Lexical errors as writing quality predictors. Studia Linguistica, 61(1), 1-19. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9582.2007.00127.x
• Llach, M. P. (2011). Lexical errors and accuracy in foreign language writing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
• Malekzadeh, R., & Najmi, K. (2015). The Effect of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) on Guided Writing Skill of Iranian Upper-Intermediate EFL Learners. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research (JALLR), 2(4), 42–52. https://www.jallr.com/index.php/JALLR/article/view/61.
• Marandi, S. S., & Seyyedrezaie, M. S. (2017). The multi-course comparison of the effectiveness of two EFL writing environments: Google drive versus face-to-face on iranian EFL learners’ writing performance and writing apprehension. CALL-EJ, 18(1), 9–21. http://callej.org/journal/18-1/Marandi_Seyyedrezaie2017.pdf.
• Morgana, V., & Shrestha, P. N. (2018). Investigating Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Using the iPad in an Italian English as a Foreign Language Classroom. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 8(3), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.2018070102.
• Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nazari, M., & Xodabande, I. (2020). L2 Teachers’ Mobile-related Beliefs and Practices: Contributions of a Professional Development Initiative. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1799825.
• Norris, L., & Kukulska‐Hulme, A. (2017). Teacher Training and PD in Mobile Pedagogy for English Language Teaching. In R. Power, M. Ally, D. Cristol, & A. Palalas (Eds.), IAmLearning: Mobilizing and supporting educator practice (pp. 112–148). International Association for Mobile Learning.
• Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional Development for Language Teachers: Strategies for Teacher Learning. In Cambridge Language Education. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667237.
• Seyyedrezaie, Z. S., Ghonsooly, B., Shahriari, H., & Fatemi, A. H. (2016). Examining the effects of google docs-based instruction and peer feedback types (Implicit vs. Explicit) on EFL learners’ writing performance. CALL-EJ, 17(1), 35–51. http://callej.org/journal/17-1/Seyyedrezaie_Ghonsooly_Shahriari_Fatemi2016.pdf.
• Yamaç, A., Öztürk, E., & Mutlu, N. (2020). Effect of digital writing instruction with tablets on primary school students’ writing performance and writing knowledge. Computers & Education, 157, 103981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103981.
• Zheng, B., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Epilogue: Second language writing in the age of computer-mediated communication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.014.