Options
Exploring the integration of automated feedback in process-based writing instruction : a case study in China
Author
Huang, Shu
Supervisor
Renandya, Willy A.
Abstract
Although it is now a common practice for many L2 teachers to include automated feedback as one feedback source in addition to teacher feedback and peer feedback so as to encourage multiple drafts from the students, it remains unknown how these different sources of feedback work together and whether this integration may affect learner perceptions of peer review and the revision quality of student texts. The present study introduces Pigaiwang, a widely used web-based AWE (automatic writing evaluation) program in China that is specially designed for Chinese EFL learners, and explores 1) how a group of low-proficiency Chinese university students perceive the feedback provided by this AWE tool; 2) whether the use of this new technology influences the students’ perceptions of peer review; and 3) whether the use of this AWE tool has an impact on the revision quality of student texts.
A mixed-methods approach was employed, in which multiple types of data were collected including questionnaires, students’ drafts, reflective journals and semi-structured interviews. The study finds that 1) the automated feedback by Pigaiwang was well perceived by the student participants, indicating its potential for facilitating writing instruction; and 2) the impact of Pigaiwang was not great enough to reach statistical significance, i.e., the integration of Pigaiwang in process-based writing classes did not significantly affect either students’ overall perceived usefulness of peer review or the revision quality of student texts.
Several practical implications can be drawn from the present study for the use of AWE technology and peer review in L2 process-based writing instruction. First, the study lends support to the use of AWE tools among EFL learners who are still on the way towards acquiring the language. Second, the study reminds us that the use of technology into language learning classrooms does not necessarily make the job of teaching writing easier. Instead of taking it for granted that the additional feedback source would benefit learners, teachers may want to give a fuller consideration of the design of the pedagogical activity, so as to augment the benefits and to minimize the problems brought about by the AWE technology. Third, the study shows that the same pedagogical activity can be approached differently by individual students who are at different proficiency levels and/or who have different learning beliefs of writing, which calls for in-depth analyses of student profiles in devising any pedagogical activity. Finally, the present study reveals that many Chinese students seemed to put too much emphasis on the surface issues in writing, suggesting that the writing instructors in this context should consider how to orient students towards a more balanced view of form and meaning.
A mixed-methods approach was employed, in which multiple types of data were collected including questionnaires, students’ drafts, reflective journals and semi-structured interviews. The study finds that 1) the automated feedback by Pigaiwang was well perceived by the student participants, indicating its potential for facilitating writing instruction; and 2) the impact of Pigaiwang was not great enough to reach statistical significance, i.e., the integration of Pigaiwang in process-based writing classes did not significantly affect either students’ overall perceived usefulness of peer review or the revision quality of student texts.
Several practical implications can be drawn from the present study for the use of AWE technology and peer review in L2 process-based writing instruction. First, the study lends support to the use of AWE tools among EFL learners who are still on the way towards acquiring the language. Second, the study reminds us that the use of technology into language learning classrooms does not necessarily make the job of teaching writing easier. Instead of taking it for granted that the additional feedback source would benefit learners, teachers may want to give a fuller consideration of the design of the pedagogical activity, so as to augment the benefits and to minimize the problems brought about by the AWE technology. Third, the study shows that the same pedagogical activity can be approached differently by individual students who are at different proficiency levels and/or who have different learning beliefs of writing, which calls for in-depth analyses of student profiles in devising any pedagogical activity. Finally, the present study reveals that many Chinese students seemed to put too much emphasis on the surface issues in writing, suggesting that the writing instructors in this context should consider how to orient students towards a more balanced view of form and meaning.
Date Issued
2016
Call Number
LB2331 Hua
Date Submitted
2016