Investigating the Nexus of TBLT and Automatic Corrective Feedback: Implications for Second Language Writing
محورهای موضوعی : Applied Linguistics
Nafis Hosseinpour
1
,
Fateme Raeesi
2
,
Fariba Rahimi Esfehani
3
1 - Assistant Professor, Department of Foreign Languages, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad university, Isfahan, Iran
2 - Ph.D. Department of English language and literature, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University
3 - Department of English, Shahrekord branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
کلید واژه: Corrective Feedback, Writing Skill, Task Based Language Teaching ,
چکیده مقاله :
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) and Automatic Corrective Feedback (ACF) are two pedagogical approaches that intersect in the realm of language learning and teaching. However, the integration of ACF into TBLT has not been thoroughly investigated, especially in second language writing. The current study, hence, was an attempt to explore the relationship between TBLT and ACF on the overall quality of L2 writing among a group of Iranian EFL learners. To this end, a number of 120 EFL learners were selected to participate in the study. The participants were subsequently allocated randomly into five groups: two control groups and three experimental groups. A preliminary writing assignment, serving as the pre-test, was administered to all groups. In this task, learners were instructed to rewrite the reading passage from unit 6A of the American File book, which was designated as a descriptive writing task. Subsequently, the participants received the required intervention over three sessions in the experimental groups. The distinctions among the experimental groups pertained to the types of task repetition employed. When needed, the participants sought assistance from Grammarly as an ACF. Participants in the control group did not experience any types of task repletion nor automated corrective feedback. Once the treatment sessions concluded, participants were administered the same pre-test as a post-test to gauge any alterations in the quality of their writing. Data analysis entailed a series of t-tests. Findings indicated that, on the whole, the three writing tasks accompanying ACF impacted the quality of writing among EFL learners similarly. Recommendations for future research were also put forward.
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) and Automatic Corrective Feedback (ACF) are two pedagogical approaches that intersect in the realm of language learning and teaching. However, the integration of ACF into TBLT has not been thoroughly investigated, especially in second language writing. The current study, hence, was an attempt to explore the relationship between TBLT and ACF on the overall quality of L2 writing among a group of Iranian EFL learners. To this end, a number of 120 EFL learners were selected to participate in the study. The participants were subsequently allocated randomly into five groups: two control groups and three experimental groups. A preliminary writing assignment, serving as the pre-test, was administered to all groups. In this task, learners were instructed to rewrite the reading passage from unit 6A of the American File book, which was designated as a descriptive writing task. Subsequently, the participants received the required intervention over three sessions in the experimental groups. The distinctions among the experimental groups pertained to the types of task repetition employed. When needed, the participants sought assistance from Grammarly as an ACF. Participants in the control group did not experience any types of task repletion nor automated corrective feedback. Once the treatment sessions concluded, participants were administered the same pre-test as a post-test to gauge any alterations in the quality of their writing. Data analysis entailed a series of t-tests. Findings indicated that, on the whole, the three writing tasks accompanying ACF impacted the quality of writing among EFL learners similarly. Recommendations for future research were also put forward.
Bai, L., & Hu, G. (2017). In the face of fallible AWE feedback: How do students respond?. Educational Psychology, 37(1), 67-81.
Barrot, J. S. (2021). Effects of Facebook-based e-portfolio on ESL learners’ writing performance. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34(1), 95-111.
Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using automated written corrective feedback in the writing classrooms: Effects on L2 writing accuracy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(4), 584-607.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge, London.
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters, 29, 347-359.
Bonilla, M., Van Steendam, E., Speelman, D., & Buyse, K. (2018). The Differential Effects of Comprehensive Feedback Forms in the Second Language Writing Class: Comprehensive Feedback in the L2 Writing Class. Language Learning, 68(3), 813-850.
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in higher education, 38(6), 698-712.
Burstein, J., Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C. (2003, August). Criterion SM Online Essay Evaluation: An Application for Automated Evaluation of Student Essays. AI Magazine, 25(3), 27
Burton, J. (2009). Reflecting Writing: Getting to the Heart of Teaching and Learning. In J. Burton; P. Quirke; C. L. Reichmann and J. K Peyton (Eds). Reflective Writing: A Way to Lifelong Teacher Learning (pp. 1-11). USA: TESL-EJ Publications.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23-48). Longman.
Chastain, K. (1988). The Development of Modern-Language Skills: Theory to Practice. Philadelphia: The Center for Curriculum Development, London.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford university press.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT journal, 63(2), 97-107.
Eslami, E. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 445-452.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?. Journal of second language writing, 10(3), 161-184.
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 23(2), 81-104.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of second language writing, 22(3), 307-329.
Fernández-Toro, M., & Hurd, S. (2014). A model of factors affecting independent learners’ engagement with feedback on language learning tasks. Distance education, 35(1), 106-125.
Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443-461.
Gao, J., & Ma, S. (2022). Instructor feedback on free writing and automated corrective feedback in drills: Intensity and efficacy. Language Teaching Research, 26(5), 986-1009.
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of second language writing, 30, 31-44.
Hosseiny, M. (2014). The role of direct and indirect written corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL students’ writing skill. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 668-674.
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230.
Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of second language writing, 27, 1-18.
Jiang, W. & Eslami, Z. (2022) Effects of computer-mediated collaborative writing on individual EFL writing performance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2701-2730.
Karim K., Nassaji H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24, 519–529.
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta‐analysis. The modern language journal, 99(1), 1-18.
Koltovskaia, S. (2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44, 100450.
Lamy, M., & Hampel, R. (2007). Online communication in language learning and teaching. Springer.
Latham-Koenig, C., Oxenden, C., & Seligson, P. (2013). English File: Pre-intermediate. Student's Book B. Workbook B. Oxford University Press.
Lee M.K., Evans M. (2019). Investigating the operating mechanisms of the sources of L2 writing self-efficacy at the stages of giving and receiving peer feedback. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 831–847.
Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for academic Purposes, 2(3), 193-227.
Manchón R.M. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In Manchón R.M. (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 61–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Murphy, L., & de Larios, J. R. (2010). Searching for words: One strategic use of the mother tongue by advanced Spanish EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(2), 61-81.
ONeill, R., & Russell, A. (2019). Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 250-262.
Ozfidan, B., & Mitchell, C. (2020). Detected Difficulties in Argumentative Writing. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 7(2), 15-29.
Polio, C., & Shea, M. C. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of second language writing, 26, 10-27.
Ranalli, J. (2018). Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 653-674.
Shadiev, R., & Feng, Y. (2023). Using automated corrective feedback tools in language learning: a review study. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-29.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case Studies. Studies in second language acquisition, 32(2), 303-334.
Tan, S., Cho, Y. W., & Xu, W. (2023). Exploring the effects of automated written corrective feedback, computer-mediated peer feedback and their combination mode on EFL learner’s writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(10), 7276-7286.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of second language writing, 17(4), 292-305.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466.
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37.
Woodrow L. (2011). College English writing affect: Self-efficacy and anxiety. System, 39, 510–522.
Zarrinabadi, N., Jamalvandi, B., & Rezazadeh, M. (2023). Investigating fixed and growth teaching mindsets and self-efficacy as predictors of language teachers’ burnout and professional identity. Language Teaching Research, 26(3), 362-378.
Zhang, X., & Li, W. (2023). Remodeling effects of linguistic features on L2 writing quality of two genres. Reading and Writing, 1-26.
