Investigating L2 writers' uses of machine translation and other online tools

Abstract

New technologies have had a substantial impact on L2 learners' writing processes. Given the continuous nature of technological evolution, more work is needed to document L2 writers' learner‐initiated technology use, particularly their use of machine translation (MT) tools. This need is further solidified by recent calls for new pedagogical approaches to better prepare learners to use MT critically. The current study uses screen recordings, retrospective recall, and interviews to document what online tools L2 writers' use, how they use them, and what factors influence this use. Findings reveal that participants overwhelmingly rely on MT tools while writing. Moreover, they engage in complex actions with MT tools, which are influenced by language knowledge, beliefs about online tools, their own perceived roles in the writing process, and classroom policies. The paper ends with a consideration of the struggles that emerge to consider their pedagogical implications for supporting critical online tool use.

Teacher Perspectives of Machine Translation in the EFL Writing Classroom

“…In addition, through the advancement in NMT, detection has become increasingly challenging for instructors in the field of language teaching, when the writer's actual writing ability without the use of MT tools is unknown (Stapleton & Ka Kin, 2019). There are concerns that MT can be detrimental where MT prevents learners from engaging in the writing process (Vinall & Hellmich, 2021). However, the readily accessible tool is omnipresent and an unavoidable part of our daily lives (Groves & Mundt, 2015).…”

“…In some studies, it was found that students were discouraged from even single-word translations (Vinall & Hellmich, 2021). In other studies, MT was considered to be a form of plagiarism (Stapleton & Ka Kin, 2019).…”

“…Few MT studies are based in Japan. While there are empirical studies on student or instructor attitudes through surveys or short interviews, there are limited studies similar to that of Vinall and Hellmich (2021), that offer thick description (Holliday, 2002) of the mindset of instructor beliefs in a Japanese university setting.…”

“…MT, if used inappropriately, was considered cheating and skipping a step in the learning process, which hinders learning. Vinall and Hellmich (2021) described a participant, Leon (teacher), who took "the path of least resistance" (p. 110). He adapted the assignments so that MT would no longer be the path of least resistance.…”

Sur les traces de Richard Kern: Acknowledging the pivotal role of technologies in language education

“…This knowledge encompasses the knowledge of the affordances of a given tool in relation to a task, an ability to exploit these affordances appropriately and in a timely manner, in isolation or in conjunction with other tools, and an ethical reflection on what the use-or nonuse-of a tool produces in the development of knowledge and in relationships with others. If we take the example of the use of MT for a writing task (Vinall et al, 2023), metatechnolinguistic competence would comprise the factual knowledge that a translation will, for example, be better if the query in the machine translator is made at sentence level, rather than at the level of a group of words isolated from its context. Yet, it should also comprise the reflection that the systematic use of MT to translate a text from L1 to Lx might help learners perform a writing task but also create among them "an illusion of linguistic ability," as Kern (2024, this issue, p. 522) puts it.…”