Computer-Generated vs. Direct Written Corrective Feedback and Iranian EFL Students’ Syntactic Accuracy and Complexity | ||
| Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills) | ||
| مقاله 5، دوره 42، شماره 2، مرداد 2023، صفحه 111-148 اصل مقاله (3.57 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/tesl.2023.46955.3177 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Reza Bagheri Nevisi* ؛ Nikoo Arab | ||
| Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Humanities, University of Qom, Qom, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| To date, with the everyday growth of technology and the increase of online classes, busy modern teachers seek to lighten their burdens and boost their learners’ autonomy. Thus, this multi-method action research aimed to probe the differences between receiving computer-generated and direct corrective feedback (CF) on the syntactic accuracy and complexity of female adolescent Iranian EFL learners’ writing. Two intact classes took part in the study; one group (Group C) received CF from an AWE (Automated Writing Evaluation) tool, called Ginger software, and the other group (Group T) received CF from their teacher. Subject-verb agreement and verb form errors were considered to measure the syntactic accuracy while the average sentence length and verb form variation were regarded as the syntactic complexity. Moreover, via a questionnaire, the students’ perceptions of the kind of CF they had received were taken into account to see which one was more effective. Findings obtained from MANOVA revealed that both groups made significant improvements regarding syntactic accuracy. Group C produced more complex outputs after being exposed to the treatment while Group T didn’t make such progress. The results obtained from the questionnaire also indicated that both groups found the CF satisfactory. However, Group C held more positive attitudes. Not only was the Ginger application effective in decreasing the number of students’ writing errors but also it motivated them to be better writers and write more. The study further points to the likely merits of technology-enhanced feedback in improving EFL learners' writing ability in general, and their written syntactic accuracy/complexity in particular. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Computer-generated Feedback؛ Direct Written Corrective Feedback؛ Syntactic Accuracy؛ Syntactic Complexity | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Al-Ahdal, A. A. M. H. (2020). Using computer software as a tool of error analysis: Giving EFL teachers and learners a much-needed impetus. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity, and Change, 12(2), 418–437.
Alavi, S., Kaivanpanah, S., & Danesh, F. (2019). A comparative study of writing assessment using activity theory-based assessment model (ATBAM) and a traditional approach. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 11(23), 1–25.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English linguistic change in writing. Cambridge University Press.
Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cavaleri, M., & Dianati, S. (2016). You want me to check your grammar again? The usefulness of an online grammar checker as perceived by students. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 10(1), 223–236.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(03)00038-9
Chen, C.-F. E., & Cheng, W.-Y. E. (2006). The use of a computer-based writing program: Facilitation or frustration? [Paper presentation], 23rd International Conference on English Teaching and Learning, Republic of China.
Chen, C.-F. E., & Cheng, W.-Y. E. (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language, Learning and Technology, 12(2), 94–112.
Dikli, S. (2010). The nature of automated essay scoring feedback. CALICO Journal, 28(1), 99–134. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.1.99-134
Dikli, S., & Bleyle, S. (2014). Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback? Assessing Writing, 22, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.006
Edge, J. (1989). Mistakes and corrections. Longman.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Routledge.
Fang, Y. (2010). Perceptions of the computer-assisted writing program among EFL college learners. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 246–256.
Farrokhi, F., & Sattarpour, S. (2012). The effects of direct written corrective feedback on improvement of grammatical accuracy of high-proficient L2 learners. World Journal of Education, 2(2), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v2n2p49
Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (2012). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing (pp. 178–190). Cambridge University Press.
Fazilatfar, A. M., Fallah, N., Hamavandi, M., & Rostamian, M. (2014). The effect of unfocused written corrective feedback on syntactic and lexical complexity of L2 writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 482–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.443
Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(01)00042-x
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80110-6
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? new evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies. Language Teaching, 45(4), 446–459. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444812000250
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587804
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–323. https://doi:10.1017/S0272263100015047
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), 1–43.
Hajebi, M. (2018). Enhancing writing performance of Iranian EFL university students in the light of using computer-assisted language learning. International Linguistics Research, 1(2), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.30560/ilr.v1n2p47
Huang, S., & Renandya, W. A. (2018). Exploring the integration of automated feedback among lower-proficiency EFL learners. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2018.1471083
Huxham, M. (2007). Fast and effective feedback: Are model answers the answer? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(6), 601–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930601116946
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(98)90017-0
Hyland, K. (1993). ESL computer writers: What can we do to help? System, 21(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251x(93)90004-z
Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Meschi, R. (2020). L2 writers’ processing of teacher vs. computer-generated feedback. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 12(26), 175–215. https://doi.org/10.22034/ELT.2020.11472
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189
Lai, Y. (2010). Which do students prefer to evaluate their essays: Peers or computer program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00959.x
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–619. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029
Liao, H.-C. (2015). using automated writing evaluation to reduce grammar errors in writing. ELT Journal, 70(3), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv058
Lu, X. (2019). An empirical study on the artificial intelligence writing evaluation system in China CET. Big Data, 7(2), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1089/big.2018.0151
Milton, J. (2006). Resource-rich web-based feedback: Helping learners become independent writers. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 123–139). Cambridge University Press.
Mohammad Hosseinpur, R. (2015). The impact of teaching summarizing on EFL learners' microgenetic development of summary writing. Teaching as a Second Language Quarterly, 34(2), 69-92.
Mohammad Hosseinpur, R., Bagheri Nevisi, R., & Bahrani, S. (2018). The impact of sequence map. answering questions, and 3-2-1 technique on EFL learners' summary writing ability. Teaching as a Second Language Quarterly, 37(2), 125-167.
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2021). The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching. Cambridge University Press.
O’Neill, R., & Russell, A. (2018). Stop! grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Ginger. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3795
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492.
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). “If I only had more time:” ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(98)90005-4
Qassemzadeh, A., & Soleimani, H. (2016). The impact of feedback provision by Ginger software and teachers on learning passive structures by Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(9), 1884–1894. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0609.23
Saadi, Z. K., & Saadat, M. (2015). EFL Learners’ writing accuracy: Effects of direct and metalinguistic electronic feedback. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(10), 20–53. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0510.11
Salavatizadeh, M., & Tahriri, A. (2020). The effect of blended online automated feedback and teacher feedback on EFL learners’ essay writing ability and perception. Teaching as a Second Language Quarterly, 39(3.2), 181–225. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2021.38753.2899
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
University of Cambridge. (2007). Key English test: Handbook for teachers. UCLES.
Valizadeh, M. (2020). The effect of comprehensive written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ written syntactic accuracy. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 11(1), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.11n.1p.17
Vali̇zadeh, M., & Soltanpour, F. (2021). Focused direct corrective feedback: Effects on the elementary English learners’ written syntactic complexity. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7 (1), 132–150. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911207
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing: Effectiveness of comprehensive CF. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
Wang, Z., & Han, F. (2022). The effects of teacher feedback and automated feedback on cognitive and psychological aspects of foreign language writing: A mixed-methods research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.909802
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 Monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586773 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 523 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 411 |
||