Application of Computer Software Grammarly into Written Corrective Feedback on Low-Level EFL Learners’ Writings
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The present study aimed to investigate effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on the development of Korean EFL writing skills. Feedback was provided using the computer software Grammarly. Twenty-seven students of the English Department of Adult Life-long Education at a university in Seoul participated in this study. The researcher employed a three-stage design: (1) individual writing of a draft in class, (2) two types of feedback (direct WCF vs. indirect WCF, reformulation), and (3) individual rewriting in class. Participants' writing scores significantly improved after receiving feedback overall. In addition, errors in forms and clarity significantly reduced after the feedback, but not errors in word choices. Regarding feedback types, learning gains were more significant after direct WCF than reformulation, although errors in forms after direct WCF and word choice errors after reformulation significantly reduced among three types of errors. Additionally, most errors occurred in forms. The ratio of uptake was relatively low. The direct WCF group demonstrated a higher uptake in errors of forms and clarity, while word choice errors were more effectively addressed by reformulation. Theoretical and pedagogical implications of these findings are discussed.
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on the development of Korean EFL writing skills. Feedback was provided using the computer software Grammarly. Twenty-seven students of the English Department of Adult Life-long Education at a university in Seoul participated in this study. The researcher employed a three-stage design: (1) individual writing of a draft in class, (2) two types of feedback (direct WCF vs. indirect WCF, reformulation), and (3) individual rewriting in class. Participants' writing scores significantly improved after receiving feedback overall. In addition, errors in forms and clarity significantly reduced after the feedback, but not errors in word choices. Regarding feedback types, learning gains were more significant after direct WCF than reformulation, although errors in forms after direct WCF and word choice errors after reformulation significantly reduced among three types of errors. Additionally, most errors occurred in forms. The ratio of uptake was relatively low. The direct WCF group demonstrated a higher uptake in errors of forms and clarity, while word choice errors were more effectively addressed by reformulation. Theoretical and pedagogical implications of these findings are discussed.
참고문헌 (14)
- S. C. Lim, "Efficacy of written corrective feedback in writing instruction : A meta-analysis", TESL-EJ, 24(1), pp.1~26 (2020)
- D. Kang, "Feedback on EFL learners’ writing : Written corrective feedback vs. reformulation", Secondary English Education, 16(3), pp.121~137 (2023)[DOI]
- Y. Su, "Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms", Assessing Writing, 57, pp.1~11 (2023)[DOI]
- N. A. Darayani, "Grammarly as a tool to improve students’ writing quality : Free online-proofreader across the boundaries", JSSH(Jurnal Sains Sosial Dan Humaniora), 2(1), pp.36~42 (2018)[DOI]
- M. A. Ghufron, "The role of Grammarly in assessing English as a Foreign Language(EFL)Writing", Lingua Cultura, 12(4), pp.395~403 (2018)[DOI]
- H. R. Kim, "How deeply do second language learners process written corrective feedback? Insights gained from think-alouds", TESOL Quarterly, 53(4), pp.913~938 (2019)[DOI]
- J. Bitchener, "The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students", Language Teaching Research, 12(3), pp.409~431 (2018)[DOI]
- R. Sachs, "Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, pp.67~100 (2007)[DOI]
- M. Santos, "The differential effect of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake : Reformulation vs. error correction", International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), pp.131~154 (2010)[DOI]
- S. Thornbury, "Reformulation and reconstruction : Tasks that promote"noticing"", ELT Journal, 51(4), pp.326~335 (1997)[DOI]
- F. N. Wardatin, "Integrating self-directed learning in facilitating writers engagement through Grammarly : Exploring the perceptions of premium users", EnJourMe(English Journal of Merdeka) : Culture, Language, and Teaching of English, 7(1), pp.32~46 (2022)[DOI]
- Y. Shin, "The effect of automated written feedback through Grammarly : Focusing on improving language-related writing quality of English", Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 25(2), pp.84~102 (2022)
- D. Kang, "Integrated and isolated form-focused instruction from Korean EFL learners’ perspective", The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 18(5), pp.122~130 (2018)[DOI]
- D. Kang, "Vocabulary analysis of listening and reading texts in 2020 EBS-linked textbooks and CSAT", The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 20(10), pp.679~687 (2020)[DOI]