The Effect of Automated Corrective Feedback On L2 Writing in POS Categories

Wang, Yingxue

doi:10.2991/assehr.k.220706.093

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…PeerCeptiv is an online peer assessment platform (Cho & Schunn 2007; Schunn 2016), with many features resembling features in other intelligent writing systems including but are not limited to Expertiza (Gehringer 2010), EduPCR (Wang et al 2016), and PigaiNet (Wang, 2022). As its name indicates, the primary feature of PeerCeptiv is the systemic peer-review process that gets students involved in the writing and revision tasks (Lorretto, DeMartino, & Godley, 2016;Ruegg, 2017).…”

Section: Research Instruments and Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Understanding Teacher Mentoring, Learner WCF Beliefs, and Learner Revision Practices Through Peer Review Feedback: A Sociocultural Perspective

Gao¹,

Wang²

2022

JLE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. The existing literature has focused on learner perceptions or beliefs about peer review tasks over the recent decade. However, little has been known about the relationships among learner beliefs about written corrective feedback (WCF), related teacher mentoring process, and learner revision practices. Purpose. We thus aimed at addressing the gap by exploring how teacher mentoring and learner WCF beliefs may inform learner revision practices in the peer-reviewed process. Methods. In this mixed-method study, we included four Chinese EFL students majoring in English as the participants and collected their WCF belief survey data. We also collected their actual practice data through PeerCeptiv, an online writing and rewriting platform. In addition, we traced the teacher mentoring practices and interviewed the participants about their beliefs and practices in the peer review and back-evaluation process. Results. Through the mixed-methods design, we reported our major findings: the student participants believed empathy and resonance was the primary advantage of peer feedback, and teacher mentoring facilitated them in understanding and performing the peer review and revision tasks; we also found the student review process consisted of evaluating, resonating, learning, and reflecting practices and the student revision process included crediting, arguing, correcting, and polishing practices. Implications. From a sociocultural perspective, we centered our discussion on these research findings by claiming that scaffolding in different forms work together enhance learner performance and student beliefs appear in a complex manner with student actual revision practices. We also offered insights for future studies and practical implications for language teachers.

show abstract