Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-mpvvr Total loading time: 0.36 Render date: 2021-08-03T18:45:53.765Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

The impact of automated feedback on L2 learners’ written causal explanations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2018

Aysel Saricaoglu
Affiliation:
TED University, Turkey (aysel.saricaoglu@tedu.edu.tr)
Corresponding

Abstract

Even though current technologies allow for automated feedback, evaluating content and generating discourse-specific feedback is still a challenge for automated systems, which explains the gap in research investigating the effect of such feedback. This study explores the impact of automated formative feedback on the improvement of English as a second language (ESL) learners’ written causal explanations within two cause-and-effect essays and across pre- and post-tests. Pre- and post-test drafts, feedback reports for first and revised drafts from the automated writing evaluation system, and screen-capturing videos collected from 31 students enrolled in two sections of an advanced-low-level academic writing class were analyzed through descriptive statistics and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Findings revealed statistically significant changes in learners’ causal explanations within one cause-and-effect essay while no significant improvement was observed across pre- and post-tests. The findings of this study offer not only insights into how to further improve automated discourse-specific feedback but also pedagogical implications for better learning outcomes.

Type
Regular papers
Copyright
© European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bitchener, J Knoch, U (2010) Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 19, 207217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstein, J, Chodorow, M Leacock, C (2003) CriterionSM: Online essay evaluation: An application for automated evaluation of student essays. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence. Acapulco, Mexico, 3–10.Google Scholar
Chapelle, CA (1998) Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1): 2139.Google Scholar
Chapelle, CA (2003) English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, CA Voss, E (2016) 20 years of technology and language assessment in language learning & technology. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2): 116128. http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2950 Google Scholar
Chen, C-F E Cheng, W-YE (2008) Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2): 94112. http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2631 Google Scholar
Chodorow, M, Gamon, M Tetreault, J (2010) The utility of article and preposition error correction systems for English language learners: Feedback and assessment. Language Testing, 27(3): 419436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210364391 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christie, F Derewianka, B (2008) School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Chukharev-Hudilainen, E Saricaoglu, A (2016) Causal discourse analyzer: Improving automated feedback on academic ESL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3): 494516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.991795 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotos, E (2012) Towards effective integration and positive impact of automated writing evaluation in L2 writing. In: Kessler G, Oskoz A & Elola I (eds.), Technology across writing contexts and tasks (CALICO Monograph Series Vol. 10) . San Marcos: CALICO, 81112.Google Scholar
Ferris, DR Hedgcock, JS (2005) Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, SM (1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, SM Mackey, A (2015) Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In: VanPatten B & Williams J (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge, 180206.Google Scholar
Grimes, D Warschauer, M (2010) Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. Journal of Technology, Language, and Assessment, 8(6): 143.Google Scholar
Halliday, MAK (1994) An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, MAK (2003) On language and linguistics. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, MAK Martin, JR (1993) Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Hamp-Lyons, L Kroll, B (1997) TOEFL 2000 – writing: Composition, community, and assessment (ETS Research Report No. RM-96-05). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Hegelheimer, V Lee, J (2013) The role of technology in teaching and researching writing. In: Thomas M, Reinders H & Warschauer M (eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning. New York: Bloomsbury, 287302.Google Scholar
Lai, Y-H (2010) Which do students prefer to evaluate their essays: Peers or computer program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3): 432454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00959.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G Johnson, M (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lavolette, E, Polio, C Kahng, J (2015) The accuracy of computer-assisted feedback and students’ responses to it. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2): 5068. http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2903 Google Scholar
Li, J, Link, S Hegelheimer, V (2015) Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z, Feng, H-H Saricaoglu, A (2017) The short-term and long-term effects of AWE feedback on ESL students’ development of grammatical accuracy. CALICO Journal, 34(3): 355375. https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/CALICO/article/viewArticle/26382 Google Scholar
Liao, H-C (2016) Using automated writing evaluation to reduce grammar errors in writing. ELT Journal, 70(3): 308319. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, S Kunnan, AJ (2016) Investigating the application of automated writing evaluation to Chinese undergraduate English majors: A case study of WriteToLearn. CALICO Journal, 33(1): 7191. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v33i1.26380 Google Scholar
Long, MH (1983) Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, MH (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: Ritchie W & Bhatia T (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press, 413468. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3 Google Scholar
Ma, H Slater, T (2016) Connecting Criterion scores and classroom grading contexts: A systemic functional linguistic model for teaching and assessing causal language. CALICO Journal, 33(1): 118. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v33i1.26562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohan, B Beckett, GH (2003) A functional approach to research on content-based language learning: Recasts in causal explanations. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3): 421432. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohan, B Slater, T (2004) The evaluation of causal discourse and language as a resource for meaning. In: Foley JA (ed.), Language, education and discourse: Functional approaches. New York: Continuum, 255269.Google Scholar
Phakiti, A (2014) Experimental research methods in language learning. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Pica, T (1994) Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3): 493527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P, Mackey, A, Gass, SM Schmidt, R (2012) Attention and awareness in second language acquisition. In: Gass SM & Mackey A (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, 247267.Google Scholar
Rock, J (2007) The impact of short-term use of Criterion on writing skills in 9th grade (Research Report RR-07-07). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Funes, M (2015) Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saricaoglu, A (2015) A systemic functional perspective on automated writing evaluation: Formative feedback on causal discourse. Iowa State University, unpublished PhD.Google Scholar
Slater, T Mohan, B (2010) Towards systematic and sustained formative assessment of causal explanations in oral interactions. In Paran, A. & Sercu, L. (eds.), Testing the untestable in language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 256269. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692672-015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A (2001) Constructing causation: A construction grammar approach to analytic causatives. Rice University, unpublished PhD.Google Scholar
Steinhart, D (2001) An intelligent tutoring system for improving student writing through the use of latent semantic analysis. University of Colorado, unpublished PhD.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M (2016) A critical interpretative synthesis: The integration of automated writing evaluation into classroom writing instruction. Computers and Composition, 42, 116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2016.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellington, J Osborne, J (2001) Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Yasuda, S (2011) Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: Developing writers’ genre awareness, linguistic knowledge, and writing competence. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2): 111133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The impact of automated feedback on L2 learners’ written causal explanations
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The impact of automated feedback on L2 learners’ written causal explanations
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The impact of automated feedback on L2 learners’ written causal explanations
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *