Perceptions of L1 Glossed Feedback in Automated Writing Evaluation: A Case Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.26383Keywords:
automated writing evaluation, autonomy, l1 glossed feedback, perceptionsAbstract
Learner perceptions toward and utilization of L1 glossed feedback in an automated writing evaluation (AWE) program were investigated in an Intensive English Program (IEP) class. This small case study focused on two Chinese students who responded to weekly surveys, semi-structured interviews, and screen capture videos of their revisions over a four-week period. In weeks 1 and 3, the students received English-only feedback (L2), and in weeks 2 and 4, the students also received feedback in their native language (L1). The data were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Because the L1 has been shown to be helpful in students’ learning, it was hoped that the L1 glossed feedback in AWE would prove helpful as well. The participants felt a need for the glosses but also expressed reservations about relying on the L1. While the participants’ revision behaviors sometimes differed, both showed a positive attitude toward the L1 glossed feedback, toward increased noticing of errors, and toward their autonomy while using AWE.References
Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 54(3), 314–342. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.54.3.314
Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource? ELT Journal, 41(4), 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/41.4.241
Attali, Y. (2004). Exploring the feedback and revision features of Criterion. Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77(2), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/344508
Burstein, J., & Wolska, M. (2003, April). Toward evaluation of writing style: Finding overly repetitive word use in student essays. In Proceedings of the tenth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 35–42. https://doi.org/10.3115/1067807.1067814
Chen, I C. F. E., & Cheng, W. Y. E. (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.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 57(3), 402–423. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402
Cotos, E. (2011). Potential of automated writing evaluation feedback. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 420–459. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.420-459
Enright, M. K., & Quinlan, T. (2010). Completing human judgment of essays written by English language learners with e-rater scoring. Language Testing, 27(3), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210363144
Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Folse, K. (2004). Vocabulary myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.23925
Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer: An integrative framework and some practice implications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270210417664
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(6), 1–42. Retrieved May 2016 from http://www.jtla.org.
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001
Hegelheimer, V., & Tower, D. (2004). Using CALL in the classroom: Analyzing student interactions in an authentic classroom. System, 32(2), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2003.11.007
Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. In S. Fotos, and C. M. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. London: Routledge, 45–68.
Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01614.x
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742
Jacobs, G. M., Dufon, P., & Fong, F. C. (1994). L1 and L2 vocabulary glosses in L2 reading passages: Their effectiveness for increasing comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. Journal of Research in Reading, 17(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1994.tb00049.x
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Beverly Hills, CA: Laredo Publishing Company.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. Applied linguistics and language study. London, England: Longman.
Laufer, B., & Shmueli, K. (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anything to do with it? RELC journal, 28(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829702800106
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp040
Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer assisted language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004
Liao, P. (2006). EFL learners’ beliefs about and strategy use of translation in English learning. RELC Journal, 37(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206067428
Link, S., Dursun, A., Karakaya, K., & Hegelheimer, V. (2014). Towards better ESL practices for implementing automated writing evaluation. CALICO Journal, 31(3), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.31.3.323-344
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Prince, P. (1995). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translations as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80(4), 478–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb05468.x
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing. 21(4), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1191/136216800125087
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr190oa
Wilken, J. L. (2013). L1 feedback in automated writing evaluation: From learners’ perspectives. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations (1546461).
Yoshii, M. (2006). L1 and L2 glosses: Their effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Language Learning and Technology, 10(3), 85–101.
Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource? ELT Journal, 41(4), 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/41.4.241
Attali, Y. (2004). Exploring the feedback and revision features of Criterion. Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77(2), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/344508
Burstein, J., & Wolska, M. (2003, April). Toward evaluation of writing style: Finding overly repetitive word use in student essays. In Proceedings of the tenth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 35–42. https://doi.org/10.3115/1067807.1067814
Chen, I C. F. E., & Cheng, W. Y. E. (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.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 57(3), 402–423. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402
Cotos, E. (2011). Potential of automated writing evaluation feedback. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 420–459. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.420-459
Enright, M. K., & Quinlan, T. (2010). Completing human judgment of essays written by English language learners with e-rater scoring. Language Testing, 27(3), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210363144
Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Folse, K. (2004). Vocabulary myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.23925
Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer: An integrative framework and some practice implications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270210417664
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(6), 1–42. Retrieved May 2016 from http://www.jtla.org.
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001
Hegelheimer, V., & Tower, D. (2004). Using CALL in the classroom: Analyzing student interactions in an authentic classroom. System, 32(2), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2003.11.007
Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. In S. Fotos, and C. M. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. London: Routledge, 45–68.
Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01614.x
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742
Jacobs, G. M., Dufon, P., & Fong, F. C. (1994). L1 and L2 vocabulary glosses in L2 reading passages: Their effectiveness for increasing comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. Journal of Research in Reading, 17(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1994.tb00049.x
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Beverly Hills, CA: Laredo Publishing Company.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. Applied linguistics and language study. London, England: Longman.
Laufer, B., & Shmueli, K. (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anything to do with it? RELC journal, 28(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829702800106
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp040
Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer assisted language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004
Liao, P. (2006). EFL learners’ beliefs about and strategy use of translation in English learning. RELC Journal, 37(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206067428
Link, S., Dursun, A., Karakaya, K., & Hegelheimer, V. (2014). Towards better ESL practices for implementing automated writing evaluation. CALICO Journal, 31(3), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.31.3.323-344
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Prince, P. (1995). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translations as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80(4), 478–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb05468.x
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing. 21(4), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1191/136216800125087
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr190oa
Wilken, J. L. (2013). L1 feedback in automated writing evaluation: From learners’ perspectives. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations (1546461).
Yoshii, M. (2006). L1 and L2 glosses: Their effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Language Learning and Technology, 10(3), 85–101.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
2017-12-14
Issue
Section
Articles
How to Cite
Wilken, J. L. (2017). Perceptions of L1 Glossed Feedback in Automated Writing Evaluation: A Case Study. CALICO Journal, 35(1), 30-48. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.26383
