Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 75

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An exploration into the impact of WebQuest-based classroom on EFL learners’ critical thinking and academic writing skills: a mixed-methods study

Ebadi, Saman, Rahimi, Masoud·2018·Computer Assisted Language Learning
DOI 10.1080/09588221.2018.1449757
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present study explored the impact of WebQuest-based classroom on EFL learners’ critical thinking and academic writing skills by collecting and analysing the data through a sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach. Two intact classes, each with ten EFL learners, attending an IELTS course at a language institute in Sanandaj, Iran, took part in the study. California Critical Thinking Skills Test form B was used to assess the participants’ critical thinking skills, IELTS academic writing task 1 and task 2 were used to assess their academic writing skills, a semi-structured interview was conducted to assess their perceptions towards the impact ofy the WebQuest-based classroom on critical thinking and academic writing skills, and the researcher/instructor journals were used to contribute to the qualitative findings. One-way MANOVA and one-way MANCOVA were used to analyse the quantitative data. The results revealed that both the WebQuest-based and the face-to-face classrooms developed the learners’ critical thinking and academic writing skills, while the former outperformed the latter both in post- and delayed post-tests (i.e. short and long term effects) and took fewer sessions to cover the required materials. In addition, thematic analysis, used to analyse the qualitative data, uncovered a number of themes which addressed the learners’ positive perceptions towards the impact of the WebQuest-based classroom.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09588221.2018.1449757

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. ACTFL-American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2010, Maximum class size
  2. Abbit J., 2008, AACE journal, 16, 441
  3. Barros A.C., 2007, Interactive Educational Multimedia, 37
  4. Chapelle C.A., 1997, Language Learning & Technology, 1, 19
  5. Chuo T.W.I., 2007, TESL-EJ, 11, 1
  6. Creswell J.W., 2003, Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences, 209
  7. Dochy F., 2002, Student-centred education & problem-based education. Significance, background and effects
  8. Dodge B., 1997, Some thoughts about WebQuests
  9. Dodge B., 1998, WebQuests: A strategy for scaffolding higher level learning
  10. Dodge B., 2001, Learning and Leading with Technology, 28, 6
  11. Dodge B., 2007, WebQuest.org welcome!
  12. Doughty C., 2002, Paper presented at Title VI conference on distance learning of the less commonly taught languages
  13. Facione P.A., 1993, The California critical thinking skills Test: Form A and Form B, test manual
  14. Facione P.A., 1998, The California critical thinking skills test manual
  15. Godwin-Jones B., 2004, Language Learning & Technology, 8, 9
  16. Gülbahar Y., 2010, Educational Technology & Society, 13, 139
  17. Huhta A., 2002, Common European framework of reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Case studies, 130
  18. Janesick V., 2004, Stretching exercises for qualitative researchers
  19. Kuimova M.V., 2015, World Journal on Educational Technology, 7, 167
  20. Lee H., 2013, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 369
  21. March T., 1997, A WebQuest exploring transformative thinking in WebQuests
  22. March T., 1998, Why WebQuests? An introduction
  23. March T., 2004, What are WebQuests (really)?
  24. McAndrew P., 2010, Educause Quarterly, 33, 1
  25. McCarter S., 2012, IELTS introduction: Study skills
  26. Milman N., 2012, Distance Learning, 9, 85
  27. Polly D., 2009, Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26, 29
  28. Sankaran S.R., 2000, Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 66
  29. Sen A., 2006, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5, 49
  30. Soodmand Afshar H., 2014, Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran, 8, 31
  31. Starr L., 2000, Creating a WebQuest: It's easier than you think
  32. Termsinsawadi P., 2009, WebQuest module development for enhancing EFL reading and writing abilities of Thai undergraduate engineering students
  33. University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations, 2011, Score processing, reporting and interpretation
  34. Weinstein M., 2000, High School Magazine, 7, 40
  35. Williams A., 2011, Writing for IELTS: Collins English for exams
  36. Yim S., 2017, Language Learning & Technology, 21, 146

Cited by

See all 75

Metadata

Authors
Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M.
Affiliations
Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Humanities, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran
ORCID
Venue
Computer Assisted Language Learning
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2018-03-22
Volume
31
Issue
5-6
Pages
617-651
ISSN
  • 0958-8221
  • 1744-3210
DOI
10.1080/09588221.2018.1449757
Cited by
75
References
71
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.