Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:56:04.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Providing graduated corrective feedback in an intelligent computer-assisted language learning environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2017

Haiyang Ai
Haiyang Ai*
Affiliation:
School of Education, University of Cincinnati, USA (email: haiyang.ai@uc.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Corrective feedback (CF), a response to linguistic errors made by second language (L2) learners, has received extensive scholarly attention in second language acquisition. While much of the previous research in the field has focused on whether CF facilitates or impedes L2 development, few studies have examined the efficacy of gradually modifying the explicitness or specificity of CF as a function of a learner’s response to the feedback. Yet, the type and extent of CF needed by a learner, as suggested by Vygotsky (1978), sheds light on whether a learner is developing his or her abilities in a particular area and the ways in which they do it. This paper reports on a study that explores the design, effectiveness and learners’ perception toward a graduated (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994) approach to CF, i.e., feedback that progresses from very general and implicit to very specific and explicit, in an intelligent computer-assisted language learning (ICALL) environment. The results show that the graduated approach to CF is effective in helping learners to self-identify and self-correct a number of grammatical issues, although an onsite tutor provides necessary remedies when the ICALL system occasionally fails to do its part. Implications for CF research, particularly on the notion of individualized feedback, are also discussed.

Keywords

corrective feedbackintelligent computer-assisted language learningsociocultural theorythe ba-constructionChinese as a foreign languageindividualized feedback
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 313 - 334
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ai, H. (2015) Promoting second language development with concept-based instruction and intelligent computer-assisted language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.Google Scholar
Aljaafreh, A. and Lantolf, J. P. (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78: 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amaral, L., Meurers, D. and Ziai, R. (2011) Analyzing learner language: Towards a flexible NLP architecture for intelligent language tutor. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1: 1–16. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.520674 Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17: 102–118. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004 Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. and Ferris, D. (2012) Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. and Knoch, U. (2010a) Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19: 207–217. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002 Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. and Knoch, U. (2010b) The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31: 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016 Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. and Storch, N. (2016) Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., Young, S. and Cameron, D. (2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3): 191–205. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001 Google Scholar
Blin, F. (2004) CALL and the development of learner autonomy: Towards an activity-theoretical perspective. ReCALL, 16(2): 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344004000928 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornillie, F., Clarebout, G. and Desmet, P. (2012) Between learning and playing? Exploring learners’ perceptions of corrective feedback in an immersive game for English pragmatics. ReCALL, 24(3): 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekeyser, R. (2003) Implicit and explicit learning. In: Doughty, C. and Long, M. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 313–348.Google Scholar
Dickinson, M., Eom, S., Kang, Y., Leeb, C. M., Sachs, R. and Lee, C. M. (2008) A balancing act: How can intelligent computer-generated feedback be provided in learner-to-learner interactions? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(4): 369–382. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588220802343702 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005) At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2): 305–352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505014 Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009) A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2): 97–107.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. and Sheen, Y. (2006) Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4): 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310606027 Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M. and Takashima, H. (2008) The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36: 353–371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001 Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S. and Erlam, R. (2006) Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2): 339–368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (1997) The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2): 315–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049 Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (1999) One size does not fit all: Response and revision issues for immigrant student writers. In: Harklau, L., Losey, K. and Siegal, M. (eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 143–157.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2006) Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In: Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 81–104.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2010) Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32: 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490 Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. and Roberts, B. J. (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10: 161–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039 Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A. and Senna, M. (2013) Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3): 307–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009 Google Scholar
Han, Z. H. (2002) Rethinking of corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. RELC Journal, 33(1): 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820203300101 Google Scholar
Heift, T. (2002) Learner control and error correction in ICALL: Browsers, peekers, and adamants. CALICO Journal, 19(2): 295–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/cj.v19i2.295-313 Google Scholar
Heift, T. (2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16(2): 416–431. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344004001120 Google Scholar
Heift, T. (2010a) Developing an intelligent language tutor. CALICO Journal, 27(3): 443–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/cj.27.3.443-459 Google Scholar
Heift, T. (2010b) Prompting in CALL: A longitudinal study of learner uptake. The Modern Language Journal, 94(2): 198–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01017 Google Scholar
Heift, T. and Schulze, M. (2007) Errors and intelligence in computer-assisted language learning: Parsers and pedagogues. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (2006) Context and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In: Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (eds.), Feedback in second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–20.Google Scholar
Jin, H. G. (1992) Pragmaticization and the L2 acquisition of Chinese ba-constructions. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 28(3): 33–52.Google Scholar
Kepner, C. G. (1991) An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75: 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05359 Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (ed.) (2000) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. and Poehner, M. E. (2004) Dynamic assessment: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1: 49–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/japl.v1i1.49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. and Poehner, M. E. (2011) Dynamic Assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 15: 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383328 Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. and Thorne, S. L. (2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2): 309–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561 Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007) Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19: 37–66.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012) Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meurers, D. (2012) Natural language processing and language learning. In: Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 4193–4205.Google Scholar
Meurers, D., Ziai, R., Amaral, L., Boyd, A., Mimitrov, A., Metcalf, V. and Ott, N. (2010). Enhancing authentic web pages for language learners. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, NAACL-HLT 2010, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Nagata, N. (2009) Robo-Sensei’s NLP-based error detection and feedback generation. CALICO Journal, 26(3): 562–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/cj.v26i3.562-579 Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2007) Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57(4): 511–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00427 Google Scholar
Newman, D., Griffin, P. and Cole, M. (1989) The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2000) Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In: J. P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 51–78.Google Scholar
Oxford, R. L. (1993) Intelligent computers for learning languages: The view for language acquisition and instructional methodology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 6(2): 173–188.Google Scholar
Panova, I. and Lyster, R. (2002) Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4): 573–595. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588241 Google Scholar
Park, K. and Kinginger, C. (2010) Writing/thinking in real time: Digital video and corpus query analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3): 31–50. http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2010/parkkinginger.pdf Google Scholar
Poehner, M. E. (2007) Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91: 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00583 Google Scholar
Poehner, M. E. (2008) Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Poehner, M. E. (2011) Validity and interaction in the ZPD: Interpreting learner development through L2 Dynamic Assessment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(2): 244–263. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2010.00277 Google Scholar
Poehner, M. E. and Lantolf, J. P. (2013) Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment. Language Teaching Research, 17(3): 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482935 Google Scholar
Poehner, M. E. and Ableeva, R. (2011) Dynamic Assessment: From display of knowledge to engagement in the activity of development. In: Tsagari, D. and Csepes, I. (eds.), Classroom-based language assessment. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Poehner, M. E., Zhang, J. and Lu, X. (2015) Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation. Language Testing, 32(3): 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214560390 Google Scholar
Polio, C., Fleck, N. and Leder, N. (1998) “If only I had more time”: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7: 43–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4 Google Scholar
Reynolds, D. (2010) Beyond texts: A research agenda for quantitative research on second language writers and readers. In: Silva, T. and Matsuda, P. K. (eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 159–175.Google Scholar
Russell, J. and Spada, N. (2006) The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In: Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2009) Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1): 96–120. http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/sauro.pdf Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2): 219–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 Google Scholar
Schulze, M. (2008) AI in CALL-artificially inflated or almost imminent? CALICO Journal, 25(3): 510–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/cj.v25i3.510-527 Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2): 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059 Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46: 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238 Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2007) The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4): 255–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003 Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2011) Developing second language sociopragmatic knowledge through concept-based instruction: A microgenetic case study. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13): 3267–3283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wen, X. (2012) A daunting task? The acquisition of the Chinese ba-construction by nonnative speakers of Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 40(1): 216–240.Google Scholar