El diseño y arquitectura de herramientas para la redacción asistida de textos en inglés

  1. Elena Bárcena 1
  2. Tymothy Head 1
  1. 1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

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

ISSN: 1697-7467

Argitalpen urtea: 2007

Zenbakia: 8

Orrialdeak: 225-244

Mota: Artikulua

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Beste argitalpen batzuk: Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

Laburpena

This article describes the main research activities undertaken up until now in the field of (semi)automatic textual correction, paying special attention to this work from a didactic perspective, that is to say, learning foreign languages. An analysis is carried out of the research produced in the field, relating the state of development of correctors to other natural language processing applications. Subsequently, a new tool, called the VAT (Virtual Authoring Tool), is presented which is not strictly speaking a corrector, due to its inherent pedagogic nature, because it does not attempt to automatically correct the errors committed by a student. It is a multifunctional didactic tool which provides flexible context sensitive assistance to the student at an intermediate level of the English language, while writing a composition.

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • Adair-Hauck, B., Willingham-McLain, L., Youngs, B.E. (2000). “Evaluating the Integration of Technology and Second Language Learning”. CALICO Journal, 17, 2: 269-306.
  • Bolt, P. (1992). “An evaluation of grammar-checking programs as self-help learning aids for learners of English as a foreign language”. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 4, 3: 183-189.
  • Brock, M.N. (1990). “Customizing a computerized text analyser for ESL writers: Cost versus gain”. CALICO Journal, 8: 51-60.
  • Chen, J.F. (2000). “Computer Generated Error Feedback and Writing Process: A Link”. TESL-EJ 2, 3 (enero). http://www-writing.berkeley.edu:16080/TESl-EJ/ej07/a1.html.
  • Clayton, T. (1995). “Using a Customized Grammar Checker to Improve Writing and Enhance SelfDirected Learning”. Proceedings of the Fourth International Literacy Education Research Network Conference. Townsville, Australia: 241-254.
  • Ferris, D. y Hedgcock, J.S. (1998). Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  • Golding, A.R. y Roth, D. (2001). “A Window-Based Approach to Context-Sensitive Spelling Correction”. Machine Learning (Special Issue on Natural Language Learning), 34: 107- 130.
  • Healey, D. (1992). “Where’s the beef? Grammatical practice with computers”. CAELL Journal, 3, 1: 10-16.
  • Holland, M., Maisano, R. Alderks, C. y Martin, J. (1993). “Parsers in Tutors: What Are They Good For?” CALICO Journal, 11, 1: 28-46.
  • Hutchins, J. y Somers, H.L. (1992). An Introduction to Machine Translation. CUP.
  • Jacobs, G. y Rodgers, C. (1999). “Treacherous Allies: Foreign Language Grammar Checkers”. CALICO Journal, 16, 4: 509-529.
  • Juozulynas, V. (1994). “Errors in the Composition of Second Year German Students: An Empirical Study for Parse-Based ICALI”. CALICO Journal, 12, 1: 5-17.
  • Keobke, K.N., Chiu, K. y Talbot, D. (1995). Dictionaries and computer spelling programs: implications of substitution. Hong Kong: División of Language Studies.
  • Kenning, M. (1991). “CALL evaluation the learner’s view”. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 4, 1: 21-27.
  • Kukrich, K. (1992). “Techniques for automatically correcting words in texts”. ACM Computing Surveys, 24, 4: 377-439.
  • Liou, H. (1991). “Development of an English grammar checker a progress report”. CALICO Journal, 9, 2: 57-70.
  • Liou, H. (1993a). “Integrating text-analysis programs into classroom writing revision”. CAELL Journal, 4, 1: 21-27.
  • Liou, H. (1993b). “Investigation of Using Text-Critiquing Programs in a Process-Oriented Writing Class”. CALICO Journal, 9, 2: 57-70.
  • McEnery, T., Baker, J.P. y Wilson, A. (1995). “A statistical analysis of corpus based computer versus traditional human teaching methods of part of speech analysis”. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8: 259-274.
  • Nagata, N. (1996). “An Effective Application of Natural Language Processing in Second Language Instruction”. CALICO Journal, 13, 1: 47-67.
  • Oliva, K. (1995). “Grammar-Based Grammar Checker: A feasable practical imlementation of highlevel language technologies”. Proceedings of the 5th German Student Conference on Computational Linguistics, Saarbrücken: 54-60.
  • Peng, Y. (1993). “Answer markup on computer assisted language learning”. CAELL Journal, 10, 3: 31-40.
  • Pennington, M.C. (1993). “Computer-assisted writing on a principled basis: the case against computer assisted text analysis for non-proficient writers”. Language and Education, 7, 1: 43-59.
  • van Zaanen, M.M. y van Huyssteen, G.B. (2003). “Various uses of a spelling checker project: practical experiences, teaching, and learning”. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 21, 4: 325–338.
  • Yao, Y. y Warden, C. (1996). “Process Writing and Computer Correction: Happy Weddings or Shotgun Marriage?” CALL Electronic Journal, 1, 1. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/0023-8333.00141/abs.
Datuen iturria: Dialnet