Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback in Chinese as a Second Language Writing: Learners’ Perspectives

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Chinese as a Second Language Assessment

Part of the book series: Chinese Language Learning Sciences ((CLLS))

Abstract

Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of written corrective feedback in promoting second language (L2) learners’ linguistic accuracy (Bitchener and Knoch in Language Teaching Research 12(3):409–431, 2008a, ELT Journal 63(3):204–211, 2008b, Applied Linguistics 31(2):193–214, 2010a; Ellis et al. in System 36(3):353–371, 2008; Ferris in Journal of Second Language Writing 13(1):49–62, 2004, Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 81–104, 2006; Sheen in TESOL Quarterly 41:255–283, 2007; Van Beuningen et al. in Language Learning 62, 1–41, 2012). In practice, however, learners can hardly receive prompt feedback in a large class with mixed levels of language proficiency. This study explored fifth-grade students’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of using an automated essay marking system in a writing class. Chinese learners with high-intermediate and low-intermediate levels of proficiency obtained instant error feedback on Chinese characters, collocations, and grammar after submitting their essays to the system. A questionnaire and interviews were then conducted to collect the students’ views. The results showed that computer-mediated corrective feedback was generally perceived as effective and helpful for improving language accuracy in writing. According to the interview results, the most commonly perceived benefits of the system included convenient and instant access to corrective feedback as well as increased awareness of L2 form. The marking system served as a supplement to teachers in the writing class. Compared to the low-intermediate group, the high-intermediate group had a more positive attitude toward metalinguistic feedback. On the other hand, negative perceptions of the system could result from incomprehensibility/inaccuracy of feedback, preference for handwriting over typing, as well as limitations of the system design. The findings have implications for future research and implementation of an automated marking system as a pedagogical tool in writing classes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Singapore Centre for Chinese Language aims to enhance the effectiveness of teaching Chinese as a second language and to meet the learning needs of students in a bilingual environment.

  2. 2.

    According to Ellis (2009), “Metalinguistic [corrective feedback] involves providing learners with some form of explicit comment about the nature of the errors they have made” (p. 100).

  3. 3.

    According to the primary Chinese Language syllabus (MOE 2007), pupils are allowed to take the Chinese subject at the higher standard or foundation level depending on their aptitudes and abilities. The content of higher Chinese language is at an advanced level and is more in depth so as to help students achieve a higher language proficiency and cultural knowledge.

  4. 4.

    The home language background of Singaporean students is complicated as they typically command several codes and frequently code-switch depending on the interlocutor and the topic of conversation (Bolton and Ng 2014; Siemund et al. 2014).

  5. 5.

    Rules and examples were provided in Chinese on the marking system.

References

  • Attali, Y. (2004). Exploring the feedback and revision features of criterion. Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, T., Beavers, J., Bender, E., Flickinger, D., Kim, A., & Oepen, S. (2004). Beauty and the beast: What running a broad-coverage precision grammar over the BNC taught us about the grammar—and the corpus. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, Tübingen, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauvois, M. H., & Eledge, J. (1996). Personality types and megabytes: Student attitudes toward computer mediated communication (CMC) in the language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2/3), 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40(1), 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008a). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008b). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, K., & Ng, B. C. (2014). The dynamics of multilingualism in contemporary Singapore. World Englishes, 33(3), 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. F., & Cheng, W. Y. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, A., & Riazi, A. M. (2000). Building models of adult L2 writing instruction. Learning and Instruction, 10, 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Felice, R., & Pulman, S. (2008). A classifier-based approach to preposition and determiner error correction in L2 English. In Proceedings of COLING (pp. 169–176).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and L2 learning (pp. 1–46). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39(2), 229–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in L2 student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. (2003). Responding to writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 119–140). NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49–62.

    Article  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 K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. R., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). Plans that guide the composing process. In C. H. Frederiksen & J. F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development and teaching of written communication (Vol. 2, pp. 39–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frodesen, J., & Holten, C. (2003). Grammar and the ESL writing class. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 141–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R. C. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in L2 learning. In A. G. Reynolds (Ed.), Bilingualism, multiculturalism, and second language learning (pp. 43–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S. D. (2001). How to be a successful online student. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8, 4–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, V. M., Kaplan, J., & Sams, M. (Eds.). (1995). Intelligent language tutors: Theory shaping technology. NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y. M., Chiu, P. S., Liu, T. C., & Chen, T. S. (2011). The design and implementation of a meaningful learning-based evaluation method for ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2291–2302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. E. (2009). Trends in second language teacher education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 20–29). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, B., & Goettsch, K. (2000). In search of the knowledge base of language teaching: Explanations by experienced teachers. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 437–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leki, I. (1999). Techniques for reducing L2 writing anxiety. In D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere (pp. 64–88). Boston: McGraw-Hill College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, D. (2002). Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning. In The guide to good practice for learning and teaching in languages, linguistics and area studies. LTSN Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies, University of Southampton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, I. F., Chen, M. C., Sun, Y. S., Wible, D., & Kuo, C. H. (2010). Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect intention to use an online learning community. Computers & Education, 54(2), 600–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura, S., & Hann, G. (2004). Computer anxiety and students’ preferred feedback methods in EFL writing. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 403–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education (MOE). (2007). 2007 syllabus: Chinese language primary. Singapore: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mother Tongue Languages Review Committee. (2010). Mother tongue languages review committee report. Singapore: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nokelainen, P. (2006). An empirical assessment of pedagogical usability criteria for digital learning material with elementary school students. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 178–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written correct feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 203–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shermis, M., & Barrera, F. (2002). Exit assessments: Evaluating writing ability through automated essay scoring (ERIC document reproduction service no ED 464 950).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shermis, M., & Burstein, J. (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross disciplinary perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemund, P., Schulz, M. E., & Schweinberger, M. (2014). Studying the linguistic ecology of Singapore: A comparison of college and university students. World Englishes, 33(3), 340–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, B. (2000). Learner autonomy: The next phase? In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 4–14). London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smeets, E., & Mooij, T. (2001). Pupil-centred learning, ICT, and teacher behaviour: Observations in educational practice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ware, P. (2005). Missed communication in online communication: Tensions in a German-American telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 64–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M. (1996a). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M. (1996b). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3–10). Tokyo: Logos International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M. (2000). On-line learning in second language classrooms: An ethnographic study. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 41–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2008). Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3(1), 52–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Wentzel, K. R. (2007). Introduction to motivation at school: Interventions that work. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 191–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

    Yufen Hsieh

  2. The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong

    Cha Kie Hiew

  3. Singapore Centre for Chinese Language, Singapore, Singapore

    Yong Xiang Tay

Authors
  1. Yufen Hsieh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cha Kie Hiew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yong Xiang Tay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yufen Hsieh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

    Dongbo Zhang

  2. Department of Counseling Educational Psychology, and Special Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

    Chin-Hsi Lin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hsieh, Y., Hiew, C.K., Tay, Y.X. (2017). Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback in Chinese as a Second Language Writing: Learners’ Perspectives. In: Zhang, D., Lin, CH. (eds) Chinese as a Second Language Assessment. Chinese Language Learning Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4089-4_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4089-4_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4087-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4089-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation