Skip to main content
×
×
Home

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

  • Aysel Saricaoglu (a1)
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.

Copyright
References
Hide All
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
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.
Chapelle, CA (1998) Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1): 2139.
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
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
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
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
Christie, F Derewianka, B (2008) School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. New York: Continuum.
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
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.
Ferris, DR Hedgcock, JS (2005) Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, SM (1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
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.
Halliday, MAK (1994) An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
Halliday, MAK (2003) On language and linguistics. New York: Continuum.
Halliday, MAK Martin, JR (1993) Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
Hamp-Lyons, L Kroll, B (1997) TOEFL 2000 – writing: Composition, community, and assessment (ETS Research Report No. RM-96-05). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
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.
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
Lakoff, G Johnson, M (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
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
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
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
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
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
Long, MH (1983) Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126141.
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
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
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
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.
Phakiti, A (2014) Experimental research methods in language learning. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Pica, T (1994) Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3): 493527.
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.
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.
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
Saricaoglu, A (2015) A systemic functional perspective on automated writing evaluation: Formative feedback on causal discourse. Iowa State University, unpublished PhD.
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
Stefanowitsch, A (2001) Constructing causation: A construction grammar approach to analytic causatives. Rice University, unpublished PhD.
Steinhart, D (2001) An intelligent tutoring system for improving student writing through the use of latent semantic analysis. University of Colorado, unpublished PhD.
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
Wellington, J Osborne, J (2001) Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
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
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

ReCALL
  • ISSN: 0958-3440
  • EISSN: 1474-0109
  • URL: /core/journals/recall
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed