L2 Writers’ Processing of Teacher vs. Computer-generated Feedback

Document Type : Research Paper


1 University of Tehran

2 گروه زبان انگلیسی - دانشگاه تهران پردیس بین المللی کیش - کیش - ایران



Writing is thought as the most complicated skill in second language acquisition; therefore, L2 researchers have always been in pursuit of discovering an effective approach to improve it. One of the most debated ways is feedback which has a key role in improving the quality of writing. Much of the previous research on feedback has focused on analyzing different types of feedback and their effect on the learners’ writings and few studies have examined the effectiveness of computer feedback. Therefore, the present study was conducted to 1) determine what aspects of students’ writings receive computer feedback, 2) examine the difference in the effect of computer-generatedfeedback (CBF) and Teacher-based feedback (TBF) on improving the students’ writing quality and 3) compare the differences in Depth of Processing (DOP) in processing computer and teacher feedback. The results indicated that content, style and organization of their essays received feedback from the teacher and the computer. Teacher feedback was more effective in terms of its impact on improving the quality of the writing of the students than computer-generatedfeedback and it resulted in deeper processing of lexical items, whereas computer-generated feedback invoked medium processing on grammar. 


Article Title [فارسی]

پردازش بازخورد معلم و کامپیوتر توسط فراگیران زبان دوم

Authors [فارسی]

  • شیوا کیوان پناه 1
  • سید محمد علوی 1
  • رز مس چی 2
1 دانشگاه تهران
2 English Language department - University of Tehran, Kish International Campus, Kish, Iran
Abstract [فارسی]

نوشتن دشوارترین مهارت در فراگیری زبان دوم است، در نتیجه پژوهشگران همیشه به دنبال جستجوی موثرترین راه برای بهبود توانایی دانشجویان در نگارش بوده اند. یکی از راه های مورد بحث بازخورد است که نقشی کلیدی در بهبود کیفیت نگارش دارد. تمرکز بیشتر پژوهش های پیشین در این زمینه روی انواع مختلف بازخورد و تاثیرشان روی نگارش فراگیران بوده و تعداد کمی موثر بودن بازخورد کامپیوتر را سنجیده اند. در نتیجه پژوهش حاضر به سه جهت انجام شده است: 1. کدام یک از جنبه های نگارش فراگیران توسط کامپیوتر بازخورد دریافت میکند، 2. بررسی تفاوت تاثیر بازخورد کامپیوتر و معلم روی کیفیت نگارش فراگیران، و 3. مقایسه تفاوت های عمق پردازش بازخورد کامپیوتر و معلم. نتایج نشان دادند که محتوی، سبک نگارش و سازماندهی نوشته های فراگیران توسط معلم و کامپیوتر بازخورد دریافت کردند. بازخورد معلم در بهبود کیفیت نگارش فراگیران از بازخورد کامپیوتر موثرتر بوده و به پردازش عمیق تر واژگان منتهی شد در حالیکه بازخورد کامپیوتر پردازش متوسط قواعد را به همراه داشته است.

Keywords [فارسی]

  • بازخورد کامپیوتر
  • عمق پردازش
  • بازخورد معلم
  • نگارش
  • کیفیت نگارش
Alavi, S.M., Kaivanpanah, S. Danesh. F. (2019). A Comparative Study of Writing Assessment Using Activity Theory-Based Assessment Model (ATBAM) and a Traditional Approach. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning. 11(23). 1-25.
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–258.
Attali, Y. (2004). Exploring the feedback and revision features of Criterion. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater v.2. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(3), 1–30.
Beach, R. (1976). Self-evaluation strategies of extensive and non-revisers. College Composition and Communication, 27(5), 160-164.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 102–118.
Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on “the language learning potential” of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 348–363.
Bitchener, John & Storch, Neomy. (2016). Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development.
Bitchener, J. and Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 14. 191-205.
Carroll, S. and Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: an empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 357-86.
Chandler, J. (2003). The Efficacy of Various Kinds of Error Feedback for Improvement in the Accuracy and Fluency of L2 Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267-296.
Chen, C-F., & Cheng, W-Y. (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 94–112.
Coniam, D. (2009). Experimenting with a computer essay-scoring program based on ESL student writing scripts. ReCALL, 21, 259-279.
Ebyary, Kh., Windeatt, S,. (2010). The Impact of Computer-Based Feedback on Students Written Work. IJES, 10 (2),121-142.
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. Elt Journal. 63. 97-107.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21, 193-204.
Ericsson, P. F., & Haswell, R. (Eds.). (2006). Machine scoring of student essays: Truth and consequences. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 3353.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “Grammar Correction” Debate in L2 Writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing. 13. 49-62.
Ferris, D. (2006). ‘Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on short- and long-term effects of written error correction’ in K. Hyland and F. Hyland (eds.). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201.
Ferris, D. R. and Roberts. B. (2001). ‘Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?’. Journal of Second Language Writing 10: 161–84.
Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal, 79, 329–344.
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 16. 40-53.
Grimes, D., and Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a Fallible Tool: A Multi-Site Case Study of Automated Writing Evaluation. JTLA, 8(6), 1-43.
Han, Z-H. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly 36: 543-72.
Hedgcock, J. and Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 287-308.
Hutchison, D. (2007). An evaluation of computerised essay marking for national curriculum assessment in the UK for 11-year-olds. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 977-989.
Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), p. 171-182.
Hyland, K. and Hyland. F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching 39: 83–101.
Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition; A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.                      
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use. Essex, UK: Addison Wesley Longman.
Kahraman, A. (2013). Affective and cognitive effects of coded teacher feedback on FL writing students. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Hacettepe University Journal of Education], 28(1), 189-201.
Kim, H. R., Bowles, M. (2019). How deeply do second language learners process written corrective feedback? Insights gained from think alouds. TESOL Quarterly. 0(0), 1-26.
Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory, and application. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lai, Y.-h. (2010). Which do students prefer to evaluate their essays: Peers or computer program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 432-454.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312.
Lee, Y-W., Gentile, C., & Kantor, R. (2010). Toward automated multi-trait scoring of essays: Investigating links among holistic, analytic, and text feature scores. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 391–417.
Lee, C., Wong, K., Cheung, W., & Lee, F. (2009). Web-based essay critiquing system and EFL students' writing: A quantitative and qualitative investigation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 57-72.
Leung, B. W. (2017) The Study of Teacher Written Feedback: The Effectiveness of Electronic Feedback on Student Writing Revisions, Durham theses, Durham University.
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom. New York. Routledge.
Leow, R. P., Hsieh, H. C., & Moreno, N. (2008). Attention to Form and Meaning Revisited. Language Learning, 58(3), 665–695.
Leow, R. P. & Mercer, J. D. (2015) Depth of processing in L2 learning: theory, research, and pedagogy, Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 2(1), 69-82.
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54, 153–188.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
Miao, Y., Badger,R. and Zhen Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-200.
Morgan-Short, K., Heil, J., Botero-Moriarty, A., & Ebert, S. (2012). Allocation of attention to second language form and meaning: Issues of think alouds and depth of processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 659–685.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
Poulisse, N. (1999). Slips of the tongue: Speech errors in first and second language production. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Qi, D. S., and Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 277–303.
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67-100.
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (2003). ‘‘Introduction.’’ Automated essay scoring: A cross disciplinary perspective (pp. xiii–xvi). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shizuka, T. (2000). Effects of different editing methods on EFL writing quality: What do the students think? Kanto Koshinetu Eigo Kyoiku Gakkai, 14, 43-54.
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and inexperienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378-388.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: a response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111-122.
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217-235.
Ware, P. (2005). Automated writing evaluation as a pedagogical tool for writing assessment. In A. Pandian, G. Chakravarthy, P. Kell, & S. Kaur (Eds.), Strategies and practices for improving learning and literacy (pp. 174–184). Selangor, Malaysia: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press.
Ware, P. (2011). Computer-Generated Feedback on Student Writing. TESOL Quarterly. 45(4), 769-774.
Warschauer, M.  (2004).  Technology and writing.  In J. Cummins and C. Davison (Eds.), The Kluwer international handbook of English language education.  Kluwer: Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2008). Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies, 3(1), 22–36.
Warschauer, M., and Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 1-24.
Yoshida, R. (2010). How Do Teachers and Learners Perceive Corrective Feedback in the Japanese Language Classroom?. The Modern Language Journal. 94. 293 - 314.