Teacher’s feedback vs. computer-generated feedback: A focus on articles

As attested by a vast number of studies, in the process of second/foreign language acquisition feedback plays an important role as it may trigger learners’ noticing of the mismatch between their interlanguage and the target language (Schmidt 1990). In foreign language classrooms, feedback on written production may not be properly provided due to a large number of students or time constraints (Chacón-Beltrán 2017). In this sense, the use of new technologies in the classroom may help both the teacher in the correction process and the student in his/her language development. In the present study we aim to compare feedback provided by the teacher and feedback provided by the software Grammar Checker (Lawley 2015). One group of English-as-a-foreign language (EFL) students received teacher’s feedback on their mistakes on articles in their written production whereas a second group obtained feedback on the same grammar aspect by means of the above-mentioned software. The control group did not obtain feedback on their errors. Results show statistically significant differences in the last composition for the group who received teacher’s feedback, although this feedback did not have a lasting effect in the tailor-made delayed test. In light of these findings, we may claim that the use of Grammar Checker as a potential tool for self-correction and feedback may facilitate students’ language development, at least on the grammar aspect under analysis

Corrective Feedback in the EFL Classroom: Grammar Checker vs. Teacher’s Feedback.

The aim of this doctoral thesis is to compare the feedback provided by the teacher to that obtained by the software called Grammar Checker on grammatical errors in the written production of English as a foreign language students. Traditionally, feedback has been considered as one of the three theoretical conditions for language learning (along with input and output) and, for this reason, extensive research has been carried out on who should provide it, when and the level of explicitness. However, there are far fewer studies that analyse the use of e-feedback programs as a complement or alternative to those offered by the teacher. Participants in our study were divided into two experimental groups and one control group, and three grammatical aspects that are usually susceptible to error in English students at B2 level were examined: prepositions, articles, and simple past-present/past perfect dichotomy. All participants had to write four essays. The first experimental group received feedback from the teacher and the second received it through the Grammar Checker program. The control group did not get feedback on the grammatical aspects of the analysis but on other linguistic forms not studied. The results obtained point, first of all, to the fact that the software did not mark grammatical errors in some cases. This means that students were unable to improve their written output in terms of linguistic accuracy after receiving feedback from the program. In contrast, students who received feedback from the teacher did improve, although the difference was not significant. Second, the two experimental groups outperformed the control group in the use of the grammatical forms under analysis. Thirdly, regardless of the feedback offered, the two groups showed improvement in the use of grammatical aspects in the long term, and finally, no differences in attitude towards the feedback received and its impact on the results were found in either of the experimental groups. Our results open up new lines for investigating corrective feedback in the English as a foreign language classroom, since more studies are needed that, on the one hand, influence the improvement of electronic feedback programs by making them more accurate and effective in the detection of errors. On the other hand, software such as Grammar Checker can be a complement to the daily practice of the foreign language teacher, helping in the first instance to correct common and recurring mistakes, even more so when our research has shown that attitudes towards this type of electronic feedback are positive and does not imply an intrusion into the classroom, thus helping in the acquisition of the English language.Programa de Doctorat en Llengües Aplicades, Literatura i Traducci

Teacher’s feedback vs. computer-generated feedback: A focus on articles

Com afirmen nombrosos estudis, en el procés d’adquisició d’una segona llengua o llengua estrangera la retroalimentació juga un paper determinant doncs pot desencadenar l’apercebiment per part dels estudiants de la diferència entre la seua interllengua i la llengua meta (Schmidt 1990). En l’aula de llengua estrangera, la retroalimentació de producció escrita pot resultar defectuosa degut al gran nombre d’estudiants o restriccions de temps (Chacón-Beltrán 2017). En aquest sentit, l’ús de noves tecnologies pot ajudar tant al professor en el procés de correcció com a l’estudiant en el seu desenvolupament lingüístic. En el present estudi compararem la retroalimentació oferida pel professor amb la que ofereix el programa Grammar Checker (Lawley 2015). Un grup d’estudiants d’anglès com a llengua estrangera va obtindre retroalimentació de les seues errades d’articles mentre que un segon grup obtingué retroalimentació mitjançant el programa mencionat. El grup control no va rebre retroalimentació. Els resultats mostren sols diferències significatives per a la darrera redacció del grup que va tindre retroalimentació del professor, malgrat que aquest tipus de retroalimentació no va tindre un efecte durador en el post-test personalitzat. A la vista d’aquestos resultats, podem afirmar que l’ús de Grammar Checker com a instrument d’auto-correcció i retroalimentació pot facilitar el desenvolupament lingüístic dels estudiantes, al menys en l’aspecte gramatical analitzat.As attested by a vast number of studies, in the process of second/foreign language acquisition feedback plays an important role as it may trigger learners’ noticing of the mismatch between their interlanguage and the target language (Schmidt 1990). In foreign language classrooms, feedback on written production may not be properly provided due to a large number of students or time constraints (Chacón-Beltrán 2017). In this sense, the use of new technologies in the classroom may help both the teacher in the correction process and the student in his/her language development. In the present study we aim to compare feedback provided by the teacher and feedback provided by the software Grammar Checker (Lawley 2015). One group of English-as-a-foreign language (EFL) students received teacher’s feedback on their mistakes on articles in their written production whereas a second group obtained feedback on the same grammar aspect by means of the above-mentioned software. The control group did not obtain feedback on their errors. Results show statistically significant differences in the last composition for the group who received teacher’s feedback, although this feedback did not have a lasting effect in the tailormade delayed test. In light of these findings, we may claim that the use of Grammar Checker as a potential tool for self-correction and feedback may facilitate students’ language development, at least on the grammar aspect under analysis.Como afirman numerosos estudios, en el proceso de adquisición de una segunda lengua o lengua extranjera la retroalimentación juega un papel determinante ya que puede desencadenar el apercibimiento por parte de los estudiantes de la diferencia entre su interlengua y la lengua meta (Schmidt 1990). En el aula de lengua extranjera, la retroalimentación en la producción escrita puede resultar defectuosa por el gran número de estudiantes o restricciones de tiempo (Chacón-Beltrán 2017). En este sentido, el uso de nuevas tecnologías puede ayudar tanto al profesor en el proceso de corrección como al estudiante en su desarrollo lingüístico. En el presente estudio compararemos la retroalimentación ofrecida por el profesor con la que ofrece el programa Grammar Checker (Lawley 2015). Un grupo de estudiantes de inglés como lengua extranjera obtuvo retroalimentación de sus errores en artículos mientras que un segundo grupo obtuvo retroalimentación por medio del mencionado programa. El grupo control no recibió retroalimentación. Los resultados muestran sólo diferencias significativas para la última redacción del grupo que obtuvo retroalimentación del profesor, aunque este tipo de retroalimentación no tuvo un efecto duradero en el post-test personalizado. A la vista de estos resultados, podemos afirmar que el uso de Grammar Checker como instrumento de auto-corrección y retroalimentación puede facilitar el desarrollo lingüístico de los estudiantes, al menos en el aspecto gramatical analizado