Improving lexical errors in EFL writing by using software-mediated corrective feedbackThe efficiency of software-mediated corrective feedback

  1. Chacón-Beltrán, Rubén 1
  2. Echitchi, Raymond 1
  1. 1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

Revista:
Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

ISSN: 1697-7467

Año de publicación: 2022

Número: 37

Páginas: 275-290

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.30827/PORTALIN.VI37.20847 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

Resumen

El objetivo de este trabajo de investigación es reconsiderar el papel de las herramientas informáticas para proporcionar feedback sobre los errores de alumnos y mejorar su escritura. Este estudio, basado en el análisis de las versiones escritas y correjidas por programa de varias composiciones elaboradas por 33 estudiantes del Grado en estudios ingleses por una universidad española, nos llevó a la conclusión de que la tecnología puede ser una herramienta de gran utilidad en el proceso de enseñanza y aprendizaje en contextos de enseñanza a distancia. En este trabajo se vió que los estudiantes pudieron reducir significativamente el número de errores léxicos en sus composiciones mediante el uso autónomo de herramientas tecnológicas de corrección de errores y que, a lo largo del tiempo, los estudiantes mejoraron su capacidad para evitar tales errores. Sin embargo, el trabajo también demostró que ninguna herramienta tecnológica puede sustituir completamente a los profesores, ya que la programación informática es de momento limitada y hay errores que sólo los usuarios con conocimientos avanzados en el idioma pueden detectar y corregir.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Agustín-Llach, M.P. (2011). Lexical errors and accuracy in foreign Language writing. Multilin- gual Matters.
  • Agustín-Llach, M.P. (2014). Lexical errors in writing at the end of Primary and Secondary Edu- cation: Description and pedagogical implications. Porta Linguarum, 23, 109-124
  • Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater v.2 .Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(3), 1-30.
  • Bejoint, H. (2000). Modern lexicography. An introduction. Oxford University Press
  • Bitchener, J. (2012). Written corrective feedback for L2 development: Current knowledge and future research. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 855–867. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.62
  • Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D.R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
  • Brill, J.M., & Galloway, C. (2007). Perils and promises: University instructors’ integration of technology in classroom-based practices. British Journal of Educational Technology 38(1), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00601.x
  • Carrió-Pastor, M.L., & Mestre-Mestre, E.M. (2013). Lexical errors in second language scientific writing: Some conceptual implications. International Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 97-108. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/14/1/154361
  • Cenoz, J. (2003) The influence and age on the acquisition of English: General proficiency, attitudes and code-mixing. In M.P. García-Mayo, & M.L. García Lecumberri (Eds.) Age and the acquisition of a foreign language (pp. 77-93). Multilingual Matters.
  • Chacón-Beltrán, R. (2006). Towards a tyological classification of false friends (Spanish-English). RESLA, 19, 29-39.
  • Chacón-Beltrán, R. (2017). Free-form writing: computerized feedback for self-correction. ELT Journal, 71(2), 141-149. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw064
  • Chacón-Beltrán, R. (2018). Vocabulary learning strategies outside the classroom context: What adults learn in a technology-based learner-centred environment. The Language Learning Journal, 46(5), 583-593. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1503135
  • 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, 267-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
  • 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
  • El Ebyary, K. & Windeatt, S. (2010). The impact of Computer-based feedback on student s’ written work. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 121-142. https://doi.org/10.6018/ ijes.10.2.119231
  • Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
  • Fazio, 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. R. (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. R. (2015). Written corrective feedback in L2 writing: Connors & Lunsford (1988); Lunsford & Lunsford (2008); Lalande (1982). Language Teaching, 48(4), 531–544. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0261444815000257
  • García-Lecumberri, M.L. & Gallardo, F. (2003). English FL sounds in school learners of different ages. In M.P. García-Mayo, & M.L. García Lecumberri (Eds.) Age and the acquisition of a foreign language (pp. 115-135). Multilingual Matters.
  • Guichon, N., Betrancourt, M. & Prié, Y. (2012). Managing written and oral negative feedback in a synchronous online teaching situation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(2), 181-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.636054
  • Harvey-Scholes, C. (2017). Computer-assisted detection of 90% of EFL student errors. Computer Assisted Language Learning. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1392322
  • Hernandez Puertas, T. (2018). Teachers’ feedback vs. Computer-generated feedback: A focus on articles. Language Value, 10(1), 67-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2018.10.5
  • Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the de- velopment of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 305–313. https://doi.org/10.2307/328724
  • Lawley, J. (2015). New software to help EFL students self-correct their writing. Language Learn- ing & Technology, 19(1), 23-33.
  • Lee, I. (2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46(1), 108-119. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000390
  • Lee, I. (2016). Teacher education on feedback in EFL writing: Issues, challenges, and future directions. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 518–527. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.303
  • Lee, Y-W., Gentile, C., & Kantor, R. (2010) Toward automated multi-trait scoring of essays: Investigating links among holistic, analytic, and text feature scores. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 391-417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp040.
  • Makino, T.Y. (1993). Learner self-correction in EFL written compositions. ELT journal, 47(4), 337-341. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/47.4.337
  • Mohebbi, H. (2021). 25 years on, the written error correction debate continues: an interview with John Truscott. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6(3). https://sfleducation.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40862-021-00110-9
  • Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M., Kemp, J.E, & Kalman, H. (2010). Designing effective instruction.
  • Applications of instructional design (6th edition). Wiley.
  • Mukattash, L. (1986). Persistence of Fossilization. IRAL, 24: 187-203. https://doi.org/10.1515/ iral.1986.24.1-4.187
  • Senra-Silva, I. (2010). Designing computer-generated pedagogical feedback for Spanish students of EFL. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 23, 281-296.
  • Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300107
  • 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
  • Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111–122. https://doi. org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6
  • Olsen, S. (1999). Errors and compensatory strategies: a study of grammar and vocabulary in texts written by Norwegian learners of English. System, 27, 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0346-251X(99)00016-0
  • Verspoor, M., Schmid, M.S. & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jslw.2012.03.007
  • Ware, P. (2011). Computer-generated feedback on student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 45(4), 769- 774. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.272525
  • Warschauer, M. (2010). Invited commentary: New tools for teaching writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14 (1), 3–8.
  • Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr190oa
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet