Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T15:52:41.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Accuracy development in L2 writing: Exploring the potential of computer-assisted unfocused indirect corrective feedback in an online EFL course

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Cédric Brudermann Open the ORCID record for Cédric Brudermann [Opens in a new window] ,
Muriel Grosbois Open the ORCID record for Muriel Grosbois [Opens in a new window]  and
Cédric Sarré Open the ORCID record for Cédric Sarré [Opens in a new window]
Cédric Brudermann
Affiliation:
Sorbonne Université, France ([email protected])
Muriel Grosbois
Affiliation:
Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, France ([email protected])
Cédric Sarré
Affiliation:
Sorbonne Université, France ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a previous study (Sarré, Grosbois & Brudermann, 2019), we explored the effects of various corrective feedback (CF) strategies on interlanguage development for the online component of a blended English as a foreign language (EFL) course we had designed and implemented. Our results showed that unfocused indirect CF (feedback on all error types through the provision of metalinguistic comments on the nature of the errors made) combined with extra computer-mediated micro-tasks was the most efficient CF type to foster writing accuracy development in our context. Following up on this study, this paper further explores the effects of this specific CF type on learners’ written accuracy development in an online EFL course designed for freshmen STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) students. In the online course under study, this specific CF type was experimented with different cohorts of STEM learners (N = 1,150) over a five-year period (from 2014 to 2019) and was computer-assisted: CF provision online by a human tutor was combined with predetermined CF comments. The aim of this paper is to investigate the impact of this specific CF strategy on error types. In this respect, the data yield encouraging results in terms of writing accuracy development when learners benefit from this computer-assisted specific CF. This study thus helps to gain a better understanding of the role that CF plays in shaping students’ revision processes and could inform language (teacher) education regarding the use of digital tools for the development of foreign language accuracy and the issues related to online CF provision.

Keywords

accuracyL2 writingcomputer-assisted corrective feedbacktutorerror type
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 248 - 264
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Amiryousefi, M. (2016) Influence of teachers’ feedback discourses on EFL learners’ academic self-concept, attributions, L2 speaking, class performance, and L2 achievement: Confirmatory feedback in focus. Teaching English Language, 10(1): 39–61. https://doi.org/10.22132/TEL.2016.53612 Google Scholar
Amiryousefi, M. & Geld, R. (2021) The role of redressing teachers’ instructional feedback interventions in EFL learners’ motivation and achievement in distance education. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 15(1): 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1654482 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brudermann, C. (2013) Tutorat en ligne et rétroactions correctives à distance – Vers un modèle de médiation pour la production en langue étrangère. Alsic, 16. https://doi.org/10.4000/alsic.2633 Google Scholar
Brudermann, C. (2018) Interagir avec la « machine » à l’ère du numérique : des représentations des étudiants à l’évaluation de leur performance académique en anglais. Revue Internationale de Pédagogie de l’Enseignement Supérieur, 34(1). https://doi.org/10.4000/ripes.1278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, I.-C. (2016) Efficacy of an ICALL tutoring system and process-oriented corrective feedback. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2): 334–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.960941 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, S. W. (2019) College students’ perception of e-feedback: A grounded theory perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(7): 1090–1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1572067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chuang, F.-Y. & Nesi, H. (2006) An analysis of formal errors in a corpus of L2 English produced by Chinese students. Corpora, 1(2): 251–271. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2006.1.2.251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. & Saricaoglu, A. (2016) Causal discourse analyzer: Improving automated feedback on academic ESL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3): 494–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.991795 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967) The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5: 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagneaux, E., Denness, S. & Granger, S. (1998) Computer-aided error analysis. System, 26(2): 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00001-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., Granger, S., Meunier, F., Neff, J. & Thewissen, J. (2008) The Louvain error tagging manual. Version 1.3. Louvain-la-Neuve: Centre for English Corpus Linguistics, Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
Dickinson, L. (1995) Autonomy and motivation: A literature review. System, 23(2): 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00005-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2017) Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: What we know so far. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. New York: Routledge, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, H.-H., Saricaoglu, A. & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2016) Automated error detection for developing grammar proficiency of ESL learners. CALICO Journal, 33(1): 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v33i1.26507 Google Scholar
Granger, S. (ed.) (1998) Learner English on computer. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Guo, Q. (2015) The effectiveness of written CF for L2 development: A mixed-method study of written CF types, error categories and proficiency levels. Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand, Doctoral dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/10292/9628 Google Scholar
Hamel, M.-J. & Milićević, J. (2007) Analyse d’erreurs lexicales d’apprenants du FLS: démarche empirique pour l’élaboration d’un dictionnaire d’apprentissage. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1): 25–45.Google Scholar
Hearst, M. A. (2000) The debate on automated essay grading. IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications, 15(5): 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1109/5254.889104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heift, T. (2001) Error-specific and individualised feedback in a web-based language tutoring system: Do they read it? ReCALL, 13(1): 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834400100091X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heift, T. & Hegelheimer, V. (2017) Computer-assisted corrective feedback and language learning. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. New York: Routledge, 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2003) Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, C. (2013) Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lado, B., Bowden, H. W., Stafford, C. A. & Sanz., C. (2014) A fine-grained analysis of the effects of negative evidence with and without metalinguistic information in language development. Language Teaching Research, 18(3): 320–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813510382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2): 309–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2007) Interaction as practice. In DeKeyser, R. M. (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007) Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 408–452.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.) (2017) Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paulson, E. J., Alexander, J. & Armstrong, S. (2007) Peer review re-viewed: Investigating the juxtaposition of composition students’ eye movements and peer-review processes. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(3): 304–335.Google Scholar
Ranalli, J. (2018) Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7): 653–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rich, C. S. (2012) The impact of online automated writing evaluation: A case study from Dalian. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35(1): 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2012-0006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002) Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saricaoglu, A. (2019) The impact of automated feedback on L2 learners’ written causal explanations. ReCALL, 31(2): 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401800006X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarré, C., Grosbois, M. & Brudermann, C. (2019) Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: Impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1635164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shermis, M. D. & Burstein, J. (eds.) (2013) Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203122761 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, M. & Phakiti, A. (2014) The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19: 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2018) Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(2): 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97–114.Google Scholar
Taillefer, G. (2004) Une analyse critériée des besoins linguistiques dans l’enseignement universitaire des Sciences économiques. ASp, 43–44: 107–124. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.1095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. (2010) Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M. & Grimes, D. (2008) Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3(1): 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800701771580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenden, A. L. (1998) Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4): 515–537. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y. & Lyster, R. (2010) Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2): 235–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990519 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016a) Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36: 136–163. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190516000039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016b) Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3): 553–586. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311500025X CrossRefGoogle Scholar