The Effects of Using Google Docs on Writing Skills of Turkish EFL Learners

Year 2024, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 147 - 165, 06.05.2024

Beril Nergiz Kartepe , Çağla Atmaca

https://doi.org/10.31464/jlere.1393853

Abstract

The present study aimed to investigate the effect of teaching writing skills via Google Docs in a blended learning environment on error correction skills of Turkish EFL learners. In total, there were 50 students from the 10th grade at a public high school in Turkey. The data were collected through a pretest and a posttest in the experimental and control group. According to the statistical results, it was found that there was a significant difference between the posttest scores of the experimental and control group regarding content, organization, vocabulary, grammatical concepts, capitalization, spelling and punctuation, but not in terms of mechanics. In light of the results, using Google Docs in a blended learning environment seems promising to enhance writing skills of language learners by providing immediate feedback and error correction facilities.
Anahtar sözcükler: Web 2.0 tools, Google Docs, writing skills, error correction skills

Keywords

Web 2.0 tools, Google Docs, writing skills, error correction skills

Ethical Statement

The official permission to conduct this study was obtained from the Provincial Directorate of National Education (Date: 08.09.2021, Number: E-99530429-605.01-31221386) as well as Pamukkale University Social Sciences and Humanities Research and Publication Ethics Committee (Date: 05.11.2021, Number: E-93803232-622.02-126127). Also, the participation in this study was purely on voluntary basis, and consent of the students and parents was obtained via the consent form.

Supporting Institution

This study was not funded by any organization.

Project Number

Herhangi proje kapsamında değildir.

References

• Abrams, Z. I. (2019). Collaborative writing and text quality in google docs. Language Learning & Technology, 23(2), 22-42.
• Ağır, A. (2014). What are the usage conditions of Web 2.0 tools faculty of education students? Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 15(3), 171-196.
• 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.
• Al-Khasawneh, F. M. S., & Maher, S. (2010). Writing for academic purposes: Problems faced by Arab postgraduate students of the college of business. UUM. ESP World, 9(2), 1-23.
• Alsmari, N. A. (2019). Fostering EFL students’ paragraph writing using Edmodo. English Language Teaching, 12(10), 44-54.
• Alsubaie, J., & Ashuraidah, A. (2017). Exploring writing individually and collaboratively using google docs in EFL contexts. English Language Teaching, 10(10), 10-30.
• Ambrose, R. M., & Palpanathan, S. (2017). Investigating the effectiveness of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) using Google Documents in enhancing writing - A study on senior 1 students in a Chinese independent high school. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, 3(2), 85-112.
• Arani, J. A. (2018). Advancing academic writing in a mobile Skype-based blended model. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 12(3), 86-103.
• Aravindan, S. (2016). How to use google docs in the classroom. Retrieved from https://study.com/academy/lesson/how-to-use-google-docs-in-the-classroom.html.
• Aşıksoy, G. (2018). ELT students’ attitudes and awareness towards the use of Web 2.0 technologies for language learning. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 240-251.
• Badran, M. (2017). Digital tools and language learning. Unpublished master thesis. Malmö Högskola Faculty of Education and Society, Malmö.
• Balbay, S., & Erkan, G. (2018). Perceptions of instructors on using Web 2.0 tools in academic English courses. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 10(2), 45-60.
• Bilal, H. A., Tariq, A. R., Din, N., Latif, H., & Anjum, M. N. (2013). Investigating the problems faced by the teachers in developing English writing skills. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(3), 238-244.
• Cunningham, K. (2000). Integrating CALL into the writing curriculum. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(5), 9-22.
• Doğan, N. (2019). Collaborative social learning: Using Edmodo as a social platform to teach EFL writing for preparatory school students. Unpublished master thesis. Pamukkale University the Institute of Educational Sciences, Denizli.
• Ekmekçi, E. (2018). Exploring Turkish EFL students’ writing anxiety. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 18(1), 158-175.
• Ferdouse, F. (2013). Learning from mistakes: Using correction code to improve student’s writing skill in English composition class. Stamford Journal of English, (7), 62-86. https://doi.org/10.3329/sje.v7i0.14463.
• Ghanizadeh, A., Razavi, A., & Jahedizadeh, S. (2015). Technology-enhanced language learning (TELL): A review of resourses and upshots. International Letters of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy, 54, 73-87.
• Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. (4th ed., pp. 323-330). England: Pearson Education Limited.
• Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers, 83-186. Cambridge University Press.
• Khodabandeh, F., & Soleimani, H. (2018). The effect of CALL-based tasks on EFL learners’ grammar learning. Teaching English with Technology, 18(3), 54-68.
• Kırmızı, G. D. (2018). Lexical errors and linguistic calques as lexical transfer in EFL writing: A case study. Başkent University Journal of Education, 5(2), 99-106.
• Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classroom: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285–312.
• Mantarlı, B. (2019). The error analysis of English writings of 11th and 12th grade students in foreign language classes. Unpublished master2s thesis, Bartın University, Bartın, Turkey.
• Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Miles, M. B., &. Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.
• O'Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, 65(1), 17-36.
• Rahmatunisa, W. (2014). Problems faced by Indonesian EFL learners in writing argumentative essay. Journal of English Education, 3(1), 41-49.
• Rezaei, M., & Jafari, M. (2014). Investigating the levels, types, and causes of writing anxiety among Iranian EFL students: A mixed method design. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1545-1554.
• Sarıçoban, A. (2013). Pre-service ELT teachers' attitudes towards computer use: A Turkish survey. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 59-78.
• Seyed Rezaei, Z. S., Ghonsooly, B., Shahriari, H., & Fatemi, A. H. (2016). A mixed methods analysis of the effect of google docs environment on EFL learners’ writing performance and causal attributions for success and failure. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 90-110.
• Sharp, V. (2009). Computer education for teachers: Integrating technology into classroom teaching (6th ed). Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley.
• Suwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S. (2014). The effects of collaborative writing activity using google docs on students' writing abilities. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 13(2), 148-156.
• Terzioğlu, Y. (2017). Call teacher education: Language teachers and technology integration. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(3), 228-231.
• Thompson, J. (2008). Don’t be afraid to explore Web 2.0. Education Digest, 74(4), 19-22.
• Zhu, W. (2001). Performing argumentative writing in English: Difficulties, processes, and strategies. TESL Canada Journal, 34-50.