Investigation of Using Text-Critiquing Programs in a Process-Oriented Writing Class

Authors

  • Hsien-Chin Liou

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v10i4.17-38

Keywords:

EFL writers, CALL, text-analysis

Abstract

While the cost vs. gain of text-analysis CALL programs has been discussed (e.g., Brock, 1990) and major drawbacks of commercial packages such as Grammatìk for specific learner groups were pointed out (Liou, 1991), few research studies on integrating available text-analysis programs into realistic writing classroom activities have been formally conducted so far. This research report addresses the issue by documenting the college EFL writers' revision process in which human teachers' feedback, students' own revision, and the use of two commercial packages, Grammatìk and Complete Writer's Toolkit, were incorporated. A small-scale quasi-experimental study was conducted to examine the effect of the packages while assessing the writing performance of 39 subjects placed in either the control group or the experimental group. In addition, an interview was conducted to elicit the subjects' response to this CALL strategy. A comparison was made regarding (a) the performance of the two-group subjects, (b) the effects of the programs vs. subjects' peer comments (peer editing), and (c) the differences between the effects of critiquing of Grammatìk and Complete Writer's Toolkit. Other factors which may affect the gain while using the program were qualitatively documented. Results showed that each of the two packages has a role to play for students of various proficiency levels and that weak subjects benefited more from Writer's Toolkit and liked such programs better. No group difference in writing quality was found regarding students who used or did not use the programs. Attitudes toward the use of such programs tend to be positive. It seems that text-analysis programs may be beneficial to learners in writing revision given careful classroom design and individual attention to learners' writing proficiency. Several pedagogical implications are raised.

References

Artificial Linguistics, Inc. (1991). PowerEdit: For your best written communication, User guide. Version 1.0.

Brock, M. N. (1990). Customizing a Computerized Text Analyzer for ESL Writers: Cost Versus Gain. CALICO Journal, 8, 51-60.

Jacobs, H. L., S. A. Zinkgraf, D. R. Wormuth, V. F. Hartfiel, and J. B. Hughey (1981). Testing ESL Composition: A Practical Approach. Newbury House. Hamp-Lyons, Liz. Personal communication at TESOL'92 in Vancouver.

Hunt, K. W. (1965) Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. Research report No. 3. Champaign, IL, NCTE.

Levy, M. (1992). Integrating Computer-assisted Language Learning into a Writing Course. CALL Journal, 3, 1, 17-27.

Liou, H. C. (1991). Development of an English Grammar Checker: A Progress Report. CALICO Journal, 9, 1, 57-70.

Pennington, M.C., and M. N. Brock (1989). Use of Computers in the Teaching of ESL Writing: Effectiveness of Text Analysis and Word Processing. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 8, 155-183.

Phinney, M. (1989). Computers, Composition, and Second Language Teaching. In Pennington, M. C. (Ed.), Teaching Languages with Computers, 81-96. San Diego, Athelstan.

Price, G. D. (1989). Grammatìk IV. User's Guide. San Francisco, CA, Reference Software International.

Rabinovitz, R. (1991). "Write on Target: 15 Writer's Tools." PC Magazine, September, 321-369.

Reid, J. (1986). Using the Writer's Workbench in Composition Teaching and Testing. In

Stansfield, C. W. (Ed.), Technology and Language Testing, 167-186. Washington, TESOL.

Rightsoft, Inc. (1988). Right Writer: User's Guide. Sarasota, FL, Right Soft Incorporated.

System Compatibility Co. (1990). The Complete Writer's Toolkit. Chicago, IL, Systems Compatibility Corporation.

Downloads

Published

2013-01-14

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Liou, H.-C. (2013). Investigation of Using Text-Critiquing Programs in a Process-Oriented Writing Class. CALICO Journal, 10(4), 17-38. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v10i4.17-38