Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T16:59:38.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2018

Aysel Saricaoglu Open the ORCID record for Aysel Saricaoglu [Opens in a new window]
Aysel Saricaoglu*
Affiliation:
TED University, Turkey ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

automated writing evaluationcausal explanationscause-and-effect essaysdiscourse-specific feedback
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 189 - 203
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, 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002 Google 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): 21–39.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 Google Scholar
Chapelle, CA Voss, E (2016) 20 years of technology and language assessment in language learning & technology. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2): 116–128. 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): 94–112. 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): 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210364391 Google 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): 494–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.991795 Google 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, 81–112.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, 180–206.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): 1–43.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, 287–302.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): 432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00959.x Google 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): 50–68. 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, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004 Google 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): 355–375. 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): 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv058 Google 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): 71–91. 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, 126–141.Google 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, 413–468. 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): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v33i1.26562 Google 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): 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00199 Google 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, 255–269.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): 493–527.Google 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, 247–267.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, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.001 Google 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, 256–269. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692672-015 Google 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, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2016.05.001 Google 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): 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.03.001 Google Scholar