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

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

ISSN: 1697-7467

Datum der Publikation: 2022

Nummer: 37

Seiten: 275-290

Art: Artikel

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

Andere Publikationen in: Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

Zusammenfassung

This research aims at revisiting the role of software when it comes to providing learners with corrective feedback on their pieces of writing. The study, based on the analysis of handwritten and software-corrected versions of essays written by 33 undergraduate students enrolled in the undergraduate degree programme in English Studies at a Spanish University contributed to confirming the assumption that technology can indeed be a useful tool in the teaching and learning process. More specifically, this study demonstrated that students could reduce significantly the number of lexical errors in their essays through the autonomous use of error-correction software and that, over time, the students can improve on their ability to avoid such errors. Nevertheless, the study has also confirmed that software can in no way completely replace teachers, as computer programming is quite limited and there are errors that only proficient language users can detect and correct.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • 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