Challenges Faced When Teaching Writing Skills Using Write and Improve With Cambridge



Authors (s)


(1) * Rifqi Naufal Ramadhan   (Universitas Tidar)
(2)  Jovan Ramadhani   (Universitas Tidar)
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


This study uses qualitative research to collect and process data obtained from respondents. Researchers asked 8 questions to find out whether Write and Improve with Cambridge is an effective tool for learning to write in the classroom. The researchers found 31 participants and there were 15 participants who agreed that Write and Improve is an effective tool for learning and want to master writing skills. In addition, researchers also revealed that there were 16 people who disagreed with Write and Improve with Cambridge as the only reference for learning to master writing skills.They argue that the real-time feedback provided by the features of Write and Improve with Cambridge is less contextual.  The participants explained that the feedback provided by this application was too "bot or AI" and could not be sure that the correction was correct. They also explained that the feedback given was too focused on grammatical rather than complex writing styles such as the use of language and varied sentence structures. The results of this study were that as many as 16 participants used other applications besides Write and Improve with Cambridge, while the other 15 participants would use the application in their classrooms when they became English teachers.



Full Text: PDF



References


Beatty, K. (2013). Teaching and Researching Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Routledge.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.

Cennamo, K., Ross, J., & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology Integration for Meaningful Classroom Use: A Standards-Based Approach. Cengage Learning.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Sage Publications.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly.

Dudeney, G., & Hockly, N. (2007). How to Teach English with Technology. Pearson Education.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

Kirschner, P. A. (2015). The Overreliance Effect in Technology-based Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 981-993.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. Routledge.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2014). Critical Language Pedagogy: A Postmethod Perspective. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 13(4), 849-963.

Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy, Self-instruction and Language Learning. System 24(2), 151-163.

Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31-48). Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816799.003.

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.

Skehan, P. (1988). Individual differences in second-language learning. Journal of Research in Personality, 22(3), 353-374. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(88)90006-2.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.

Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and Language Learning: An Overview. Language Teaching. 31(2), 57-71.




Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 Rifqi Naufal Ramadhan, Jovan Ramadhani