Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course

Sarré, Cédric; Grosbois, Muriel; Brudermann, Cédric

doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1635164

Cited by 37 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research has yet to be undertaken that could investigate whether this sort of feedback on lexical errors such as collocation errors would or would not be more or less effective than providing direct feedback. Moreover, Sarré et al (2019) hold the view that written corrective feedback represents an explicitness continuum where underlining an error would be considered the least explicit form of written corrective feedback and providing the corrected form alongside additional explanation of the error would be the most explicit. We feel that the explicitness of this kind of feedback can impact learner noticing, which, in turn, can affect the likelihood of the written corrective feedback as input becoming intake.…”

Section: Metalinguistic Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Liu, 1998) that TESOL trainers should encourage non-native pre-service teachers to complete class projects, term papers, and short-term research studies focusing on areas in which the trainees consider themselves to be weak, which could help them build their collocational competence. We feel that the affordances provided by IWiLL and similar systems such as Turnitin (http://www.turnitin.com) have the potential to facilitate teacher feedback practice because these online systems streamline creating a teacher feedback bank (Chen, 2014;Guichon et al, 2012;Sarré et al, 2019). If the teacher aiming to provide direct feedback on miscollocations and other types of formulaic language does not possess the required word knowledge, then one of many published collocation dictionaries or other online word reference tools (e.g., Compleat Lexical Tutor; https://www.lextutor.ca) could be consulted when creating feedback tags.…”

Section: Implications For Teacher Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The potential of written corrective feedback for second language (L2) writing improvement has long been acknowledged (e.g., Ferris, 2002;Hyland & Hyland, 2006;Sarré et al, 2019). Despite its potential, writing specialists and theorists have debated and disagreed upon the role of teachers' written corrective feedback in facilitating students' English writing (see Lee, 2016Lee, , 2017.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Innovating teacher feedback with writing activities aimed at raising secondary school students’ awareness of collocation errors

Reynolds

Teng

2021

10.14746/ssllt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study examined the types of written corrective feedback given by second language writing teachers on Taiwanese secondary school students’ collocation errors. First, the written corrective feedback that teachers provided on learners’ word choice errors was examined to uncover the types of feedback provided. Then, analysis focused on verb–noun collocations to draw attention to how students had been receiving different types of written corrective feedback from teachers on a single collocation error type. Results showed that some sentences tagged as including word choice errors only contained rule-based errors. Furthermore, for verb-noun collocation errors, teachers chose to provide indirect and direct feedback almost equally at the expense of metalinguistic feedback. Based on the results, we suggested options for second language writing teachers when providing feedback on word choice errors.

show abstract

Section: Metalinguistic Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Teacher Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Innovating teacher feedback with writing activities aimed at raising secondary school students’ awareness of collocation errors

Reynolds

Teng

2021

10.14746/ssllt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The review of studies revealed contradictory results concerning the effectiveness of Direct/Indirect computer‐mediated written corrective feedback (see Figure 4). Reynolds and Kao (2019) reported the effectiveness of focused and directed corrective feedback while Sarre et al (2019) reported the effectiveness of unfocused indirect corrective feedback, which requires further studies to address this contradictory issue. Strobl (2015) attributes the dichotomy to mismatch between the learners' expectations of the learning environment and adopted approach.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer‐mediated feedback for L2 learners: Challenges versus affordances

Bahari

2020

Computer Assisted Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the theoretical and pedagogical affordances and challenges highlighted in studies on correcting second language (L2) learners' errors via computer-mediated feedback (CMF) in blended and distance learning. The study aimed at understanding and conveying the reported challenges and affordances of CMF to inform the computer-assisted language learning practitioners. To this end, 97 peer-reviewed articles published from 2012 to 2020 that discussed CMF with respect to receptive and productive language skills were systematically reviewed. The collected data were tabularized in terms of receptive and productive skills. To visualize the results, the obtained data were arranged in four hierarchical database formats with respect to four language skills. The implications of the study are twofold. Pedagogically, teachers are informed useful affordances that can be used to give feedback during teaching. Theoretically, researchers are informed about challenges that require further investigation.

show abstract

“…and WriteToLearn TM to name just a few, emerged in the wake of the Automated Essay Scoring (AES) engines like PEG TM (Project Essay Grader), IEA (Intelligent Essay Assessor), IntelliMetric, e-rater (Electronic Essay Rater). The extensive application of these systems into writing assessment has contributed to an increase in students' drill opportunities and in provision of timely scores and detailed feedback on content, organization, vocabulary and grammar (Dikli, 2006;Lee et al, 2009;Choi, 2014;Stevenson & Phakiti, 2014;Ranalli, 2018;Sarré et al, 2019). Therefore, AWE systems not only serve as scoring engines but also as Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) tools for users (Chen & Cheng, 2008;Grimes & Warschauer, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unveiling the Scoring Validity of Two Chinese Automated Writing Evaluation Systems: A Quantitative Study

Wang¹,

Bai²

2021

IJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) has been a burgeoning industry in China, one case in point being the extensive employment of Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) systems in college English writing instruction to reduce teachers’ workload. Nonetheless, what warrants a special mention is that most teachers include automatic scores in the formative evaluation of relevant courses with scant attention to the scoring efficacy of these systems (Bai & Wang, 2018; Wang & Zhang, 2020). To have a clearer picture of the scoring validity of two commercially available Chinese AWE systems (Pigai and iWrite), the present study sampled 486 timed CET-4 (College English Test Band-4) essays produced by second-year non-English majors from 8 intact classes. Data comprising the maximum score difference, agreement rate, Pearson’s correlation coefficient and Cohen’s Kappa were collected to showcase human-machine and machine-machine congruence. Quantitative linguistic features of the sample essays, including accuracy, lexical and syntactic complexity, and discourse features, were also gleaned to investigate the differences (or similarities) in construct representation valued by both systems and human raters. Results show that (1) Pigai and iWrite largely agreed with each other but differed a lot from human raters in essay scoring; (2) high-human-score essays were prone to be assigned low machine scores; (3) machines relied heavily on the quantifiable features, which, however, had limited impacts on human raters.

show abstract

Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course

Cited by 37 publications

References 50 publications

Innovating teacher feedback with writing activities aimed at raising secondary school students’ awareness of collocation errors

Innovating teacher feedback with writing activities aimed at raising secondary school students’ awareness of collocation errors

Computer‐mediated feedback for L2 learners: Challenges versus affordances

Unveiling the Scoring Validity of Two Chinese Automated Writing Evaluation Systems: A Quantitative Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About