Effective Applications of Automated Writing Feedback in Process-based Writing Instruction
2
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study investigated the appropriate ways in offering immediate automated writing feedback within the framework of process-based writing pedagogy by comparing relative effects of two different automated writing evaluation (AWE) system application types on improving writing performance. The experiment took an initiative step in elucidating at what point in the process-based writing stages AWE feedback is best to be served. The research is conducted to confirm whether providing an instant language-related feedback whenever EFL students call for will either interfere the development of content indeed – as it has been expected by process-based writing approach, or bring improvement in students’ writing. Two application types, namely non-continuous feedback (NCF) and continuous feedback (CF) group - are differentiated in terms of in which point of the writing stages students are enabled to get access to the AWE system. With the purpose of the study, a total of 20 students participated. The findings revealed that CF group did not receive language-related AWE feedback to the point of distracting the development of their content. Furthermore, CF group significantly outperformed NCF group in overall writing product, especially on the dimension of grammar and content. Students also expressed a positive attitude toward receiving instant language-related feedback via AWE system.
Abstract
This study investigated the appropriate ways in offering immediate automated writing feedback within the framework of process-based writing pedagogy by comparing relative effects of two different automated writing evaluation (AWE) system application types on improving writing performance. The experiment took an initiative step in elucidating at what point in the process-based writing stages AWE feedback is best to be served. The research is conducted to confirm whether providing an instant language-related feedback whenever EFL students call for will either interfere the development of content indeed – as it has been expected by process-based writing approach, or bring improvement in students’ writing. Two application types, namely non-continuous feedback (NCF) and continuous feedback (CF) group - are differentiated in terms of in which point of the writing stages students are enabled to get access to the AWE system. With the purpose of the study, a total of 20 students participated. The findings revealed that CF group did not receive language-related AWE feedback to the point of distracting the development of their content. Furthermore, CF group significantly outperformed NCF group in overall writing product, especially on the dimension of grammar and content. Students also expressed a positive attitude toward receiving instant language-related feedback via AWE system.
참고문헌 (84)
- Ashwell, T., "Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classrooms: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?", Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), pp.227~257 (2000)
- Attali, Y., "Exploring the feedback and revision features of Criterion", Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) (2004)
- Attali, Y., "Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions", pp.181~198 (2013), Routledge
- Attali, Y., "Automated essay scoring with e-rater® v.2", Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(3), pp.1~30 (2006)
- Badger, R., "Product, process and genre: Approaches to writing in EAP", ELT Journal, 54(2), pp.153~160 (2000)
- Barlett, E. J., "What writers know: The language, process, and the structure of written discourse", pp.345~363 (1982), Academic Press
- Bitchener, J., "Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing" (2012), London, Routledge
- Bridgeman, B., "Survey of academic writing tasks", Written Communication, 1, pp.247~280 (1984)
- Burstein, J. C., "Criterion online essay evaluation: An application for automated evaluation of student essays", Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (2003)
- Burstein, J. C., "Automated essay evaluation : The Criterion online writing service", AI Magazine, 25(3), pp.27~36 (2004)
- Burstein, J. C., "Toward evaluation of writing style: Finding overly repetitive word use in student essays", Proceedings of the 10th Conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics-Volume 1, pp.35~42 (2003), Association for Computational Linguistics
- Byrd, P., "Grammar in the composition classroom: Essays on teaching ESL for college-bound students" (1998), Heinle and Heinle
- Calfee, R. C., "Best Practices in Writing Instruction", pp.265~286 (2007), Guilford Press
- Celce-Murcia, M., "Discourse analysis and grammar instruction", Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11, pp.459~480 (1991)
- Celce-Murcia, M., "Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching", TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), pp.459~480 (1991)
- Chen, C., "Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation : Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes", Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), pp.94~112 (2008)
- Choi, J., "The use of feedback in the ESL writing class integrating automated essay scoring (AES)", Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, pp.3008~3012 (2010), Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
- Cohen, A. D., "Assessing Language Ability in the Classroom" (1994), Heinle and Heinle
- Corbett, A. T., "Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring:Impact of learning rate, achievement and attitudes", Proceedings of ACM CHI2001Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp.245~252 (2001), Association for Computing Machinery Press
- El Ebyary, K., "The impact of computer-based feedback on students’written work", International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), pp.121~142 (2010)
- Elliot, S., "Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective", pp.71~86 (2003), Lawerence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
- Enginarlar, H., "Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing", System, 21, pp.193~204 (1993)
- Eskey, D. E., "Meanwhile, back in the real world… : Accuracy and fluency in second language teaching", TESOL Quarterly, 17, pp.315~323 (1983)
- Fathman, A., "Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom", pp.178~190 (1990), Cambridge University Press
- Ferris, D. R., "The influence of teacher commentary on student revision", TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), pp.315~339 (1997)
- Ferris, D. R., "The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes : A response to Truscott(1996)", Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), pp.1~10 (1999)
- Ferris, D. R., "Treatment of error in second language student writing" (2002), University of Michigan Press
- Ferris, D. R., "The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime...?)", Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, pp.49~62 (2004)
- Ferris, D. R., "Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues", pp.81~104 (2006), Cambridge University Press
- Ferris, D. R., "Responding to L2 writers in college writing classes : What teachers say and what they do", TESOL Quarterly, 45, pp.207~234 (2011)
- Ferris, D. R., "Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice" (2005), Erlbaum
- Ferris, D. R., "Error feedback in L2 writing classes how explicit does it need to be?", Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), pp.161~184 (2001)
- Frankenberg-Garcia, A., "Providing student writers with pre-text feedback", ELT Journal, 53, pp.100~106 (1999)
- Frodesen, J., "Teaching English as a second or foreign language", pp.233~248 (2001), Heinle & Heinle
- Frodesen, J., "Exploring the dynamics of second language writing", pp.141~161 (2003), Cambridge University Press
- Gardiner, J., "Student attitudes to EAP grammar instruction", Cambridge ESOL : Research Notes, 48, pp.11~17 (2012)
- Grimes, D., "Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation", Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(6), pp.4~44 (2010)
- Hajian, L., "A study of students’ and teachers’preferences and attitudes towards correction of classroom written errors in Iranian EFL context", International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3, pp.287~297 (2014)
- Hartshorn, K. J., "Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy", TESOL Quarterly, 44, pp.84~109 (2010)
- Hedgcock, J., "Collaborative oral", aural revision in foreign language writing instruction, 1992, pp.3(1), 255~276
- Hinkel, E., "Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, Vol. 2", pp.523~538 (2011), Routledge
- Horowitz, D., "Process not product : Less than meets the eye", TESOL Quarterly, 20, pp.141~144 (1986)
- James, C., "Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis" (1998), Longman
- Johnson, D. M., "Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students" (1989), Longman
- Kellogg, R. T., "Does automated feedback help students learn to write?", Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(2), pp.173~196 (2010)
- Kim, Y., "Teaching Korean university writing class : Balancing the process and the genre approach", Asian EFL Journal, 7(2), pp.1~15 (2005)
- Knoblauch, C. H., "Teacher commentary on student draft: The state of the art", Freshman English News, 10, pp.1~4 (1981)
- Leki, I., "Second Language Writing", pp.57~68 (1990), Cambridge University Press
- Leki, I., "The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes", Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), pp.203~218 (1991)
- Li, Z., "The role of automated writing evaluation holistic scores in the ESL classroom", System, 44, pp.66~78 (2014)
- Li, J., "Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation(AWE)feedback in ESL writing instruction", Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, pp.1~18 (2015)
- Link, S., "Towards best practices for implementing automated writing evaluation", CALICO Journal, 31(3), pp.323~344 (2014)
- Little, D., "Perspectives on pedagogical grammar", pp.99~122 (1994), Cambridge University Press
- 맹은경, "The Effect and Teachers' Perception of Using an Automated Essay Scoring System in L2 Writing", 영어학연구, 16(1), pp.247~275 (2010), 한국영어학학회
- Manly, J., "Grammar instruction for writing skills: Do students perceive grammar as useful?", Foreign Language Annals, 30(1), pp.77~83 (1997)
- 문영인, "Short-term Effects of Automated Writing Feedback and Users’ Evaluation of Criterion", 응용언어학, 27(4), pp.125~150 (2011), 한국응용언어학회
- Mora-Flores, E., "Writing Instruction For English Learners : A focus on Genre" (2009), Corwin Press
- Nunan, S. L., "Forgiving ourselves and forging ahead : Teaching grammar in a new millennium", English Journal, 94(4), pp.70~75 (2005)
- Page, E., "Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective", pp.43~54 (2003), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- Peterson, S., "Peer response and students’ revisions of their narrative writing", L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 3(3), pp.239~272 (2003)
- Peterson, S., "Improving student writing: Using feedback as a teaching tool. What Works?", Journal of Research into Practice, 29(2), pp.1~4 (2010)
- Ranalli, J., "Automated writing evaluation for formative assessment of second language writing : Investigating the accuracy and usefulness of feedback as part of argument-based validation", Educational Psychology, 37(1), pp.8~25 (2017)
- Schoonen. R., "Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research", pp.77~101 (2009), Multilingual Matters
- Shermis, M. D., "Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective" (2003), Lawrence Erlbaum
- Shermis, M. D., "Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions", pp.313~346 (2013), Routledge
- Shin, S. -K., "‘Fire your proofreader!’ Grammar correction in the writing classroom", ELT Journal, 62(4), pp.358~365 (2008)
- Shute, V., "Focus on formative feedback", Review of Educational Research, 78, pp.153~189 (2008)
- Sommers, N., "Responding to student writing", College Composition and Communication, 33, pp.148~156 (1982)
- Truscott, J., "The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes", Language Learning, 46(2), pp.327~369 (1996)
- Truscott, J., "The case for"the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes" : A response to Ferris", Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, pp.111~122 (1999)
- Truscott, J., "Evidence and conjecture : A response to Chandler", Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, pp.337~343 (2004)
- Truscott, J., "The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately", Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), pp.255~272 (2007)
- Truscott, J., "Arguments and appearances : A response to Chandler", Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, pp.59~60 (2009)
- Truscott, J., "Error correction, revision, and learning", Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, pp.292~305 (2008)
- Ware, P. D., "Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues", pp.105~122 (2006), Cambridge University Press
- Warschauer, M., "Automated writing assessment in the classroom", Pedagogies : An International Journal, 3, pp.22~36 (2008)
- Warschauer, M., "Automated writing evaluation : Defining the classroom research agenda", Language Teaching Research, 10(2), pp.1~24 (2006)
- Weaver, C., "Grammar to enrich & enhance writing" (2008), Heinemann
- Weigle, S. C., "Handbook of automated essay evaluations: Current applications and new directions", pp.36~54 (2013), Routledge
- Witte, R., "Process writing" (1991), Longman
- Zamel, V., "Writing : The process of discovering meaning", TESOL Quarterly, 16, pp.195~209 (1982)
- Zamel, V., "Responding to student writing", TESOL Quarterly, 19, pp.79~102 (1985)
- Zhang, S., "Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class", Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, pp.209~222 (1995)
- Zhang, Z., "Student engagement with computer-generated feedback : a case study", ELT Journal, 3(1), pp.317~328 (2016)
