This study investigated the effect of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback on Korean university students’ revision behavior. Specifically, it explored the extent to which the quality of essays differed between first drafts and second drafts. Furthermore, the way individual students dealt with incorrect feedback in revising essays was examined. In this study, ETS’ Criterion program, one of the most popular AWE programs, was employed. In cases where incorrect feedback was detected, the first and second drafts were closely compared to find out how students altered the text in response to the incorrect feedback, and this was classified into one of three categories: successful changes, unsuccessful changes, and text deletion. The results showed that students’ second drafts were rated significantly higher than first drafts by two NS raters, which indicates that many students followed the revision suggestions made by the Criterion program. As students’ Criterion scores increased, their ability to identify and make successful changes in response to incorrect feedback improved. The findings of the study can advance our understanding of AWE use in an EFL context and should contribute to broader examination of how Korean university students engage in revision of their essays.

비고츠스키(Vygosky)의 사회문화 이론은 특히 제2외국어 학습에 있어서 중요한 의미를 갖는다. 학생들은 협동적인 학습 활동을 하면서 영어를 더 잘 배우고 성장하며 발전한다. 게다가 쓰기단계는 사회적 상호작용을 통해 복잡한 인식과정을 거쳐 향상되고 발전한다. 본 논문은 쓰기 수업을 하는 학생들로부터 피드백을 도출하기 위해 구글 독스(Google Docs)를 이용하여 사회문화이론이 쓰기수업에 어떻게 적용되었는지를 설명하고자 한다. 본 연구는 한국 모 대학의 영어수업에서 진행되었고, 참가자는 영어교육과 학생 11명이다. 연구자는 반성적 실천(Reflective Practice), 비계설정(Scaffolding), 동료 피드백 촉진(Peer Feedback Facilitation) 등의 과정을 통해 강사가 학생들이 한 문장에서 시작하여 단락까지 씀으로써 결국은 영어로 에세이를 쓸 수 있게 효과적으로 준비할 수 있었다. 이 연구에서 다섯 단락 정도의 에세이를 쓸 수 있을 만큼 학생들의 작문실 력은 향상되었고, 격려를 통해 서로 성장하고 발전할 수 있었다. 또한 이 과정에서 학생들의 사회적 기술과 공감능력이 향상되었고 수업 분위기도 개선되었다. 이러한 기술적인 동료 피드백은 동기부여를 위한 효율적인 방식이며, 학생들에게는 영어쓰기학습에서 자신감을 주는 것으로 나타난다. 사회문화이론의 적용을 통해 학생들은 제2외국어에 대한 지식을 습득 하고 더 발전시킬 수 있으며, 낮은 단계의 이해에서 더 높은 수준의 지식 으로 나아가게 하는 상호작용의 시너지를 만들어 낸다.

The present study aimed at investigating the effects of the two types of teacher feedback―direct corrective feedback (DCF) and metalinguistic explanation (ME)―on the development of EFL learners’ knowledge of the English indefinite article and on their use of it in writing. For this study, 58 college students classified into three groups (two experimental groups and one control group) took the error correction test and performed three writing tasks. The results of the study are 1) there was no group effect of the two types of feedback in the development of their explicit knowledge of the target feature in the test, whereas a time effect was found that their knowledge of the target feature developed significantly after the treatment; and 2) no group differences were found between the two types of feedback in the use of the target feature in the revised writing and among the three writings, though the DCF group outperformed the ME group in the accurate use of the target feature in writing. Theoretical and pedagogical relevance of the findings is addressed.

This is a longitudinal case study using a mixed-methods research design to track how two Korean university students improved their English writing competence over one year with the aid of automated writing evaluation (AWE) program, Criterion. The participants wrote essays outside of class every month for one year, submitting first and later second drafts. The participants completed a TOEIC writing test at the beginning and end of the study; students’ reflections on their writing development, obtained through interviews and journal entries, were also examined. A comparison of scores, errors, and quantitative measures of fluency and grammatical complexity indicated writing improvement. Both participants used Criterion feedback effectively to render informed judgments and valid corrections. Essay revision based on Criterion feedback yielded more self-directed learning and greater comfort with writing in content courses. It is suggested that the effect of AWE feedback transfers to long-term improvement. The results point to the potential benefit of AWE use in individual out-of-class writing practices.

High quality and timely assessment feedback is central to student learning in higher education; however, written feedback has many limitations. One of the innovative approaches to delivering feedback to EFL learners is individualized audio-visual feedback (AVF) using screencast technology. Previous research on AVF has been extensively descriptive and mostly focused on student preferences for feedback and evaluation of various screencast software. The present study employed a mixedmethod design using pre-post writing tasks and pre-post questionnaires to investigate what particularly beneficial affordances this type of media-rich feedback might offer for writers in the English-Medium Instruction (EMI) classroom, to identify the effects of AVF on changes in learners’ motivation, and to explore students’ perceptions towards screencast feedback. The results suggest that AVF is positively received by EFL learners and that simultaneous visual cues and detailed explanations promote better understanding, engagement, and active listening. In addition, AVF significantly improves learners’ writing performance and academic motivation. The paper concludes with practical implications and suggestions for further research.

The purpose of this study is to investigate error patterns in EFL college students’ English writing as well as their change over time, based on the teacher’s feedback. In order to accomplish this purpose, two research questions were constructed; first, what are the characteristics of Korean EFL students’ writing based on the maturity of English sentence by the T-unit analysis? Second, what types of error patterns are produced in Korean EFL students’ writing? Also, how do the error patterns change based on the teacher’s feedback over time? The participants were four Korean EFL college students, and they were asked to pre-write, draft, revise and edit until they completed their final draft. The results of pre- and post-writing test were also analyzed. The major findings are as follows: 1) The mean number of T-unit among participants was 42.25 units, and the mean number of words per T-unit was 10.95 words. 2) The most frequently committed errors were found out as lexical and morphological errors. Moreover, the rate of lexical and sentence structure errors has been dropped, whereas the rate of punctuation errors has increased as the teacher’s feedback progressed over time. Pedagogical and practical suggestions are also made on the effective teaching of English writing in Korean classroom settings.

This paper examined effects of three types of written corrective feedback (CF) on L2 learners’ grammatical accuracy in writing, focusing on the use of verb tense and articles. Within Ellis’ (2008) typology of CF, the present study focused on direct, indirect, and metalinguistic CF. The feedback was provided at each stage of writing, and the participants were to write three new pieces of writing. Changes in the accuracy of the grammatical targets were measured. Results indicated that despite the limitations of the small number of the participants, positive changes in the grammatical accuracy were found with metalinguistic CF for verb tense and with indirect CF for articles in new pieces of writing. In addition, unlike previous studies, a negative role of direct written feedback was observed in the present study.

This study investigated the appropriate ways in offering immediate automated writing feedback within the framework of process-based writing pedagogy by comparing relative effects of two different automated writing evaluation (AWE) system application types on improving writing performance. The experiment took an initiative step in elucidating at what point in the process-based writing stages AWE feedback is best to be served. The research is conducted to confirm whether providing an instant language-related feedback whenever EFL students call for will either interfere the development of content indeed – as it has been expected by process-based writing approach, or bring improvement in students’ writing. Two application types, namely non-continuous feedback (NCF) and continuous feedback (CF) group - are differentiated in terms of in which point of the writing stages students are enabled to get access to the AWE system. With the purpose of the study, a total of 20 students participated. The findings revealed that CF group did not receive language-related AWE feedback to the point of distracting the development of their content. Furthermore, CF group significantly outperformed NCF group in overall writing product, especially on the dimension of grammar and content. Students also expressed a positive attitude toward receiving instant language-related feedback via AWE system.

Nascent research into computer-mediated feedback has demonstrated its potential effectiveness for providing extensive and detailed feedback. However, a dearth of research exists on international doctoral students’ perceptions of online feedback. Thus, our exploratory qualitative study reported in this article investigated the use of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) (e.g., Skype) software to provide feedback on academic writing to international doctoral students in a TESOL Education program at a large urban university in the US. Each student participated in six feedback sessions in which they engaged in think-aloud while reacting to feedback on their academic writing presented through several online modes. The think-aloud sessions were followed by semi-structured interviews. The themes of negotiated feedback and micro-mentoring emerged when the use of online communication technologies allowed the feedback process to become more bi-directional. Based on our findings, we concluded that VoIPenabled feedback had the potential to facilitate the scaffolding of academic writing development of international graduate students.

This study examined how Chinese college students react to their writing teachers’ corrective feedback (CF). A total of 1,077 students completed a survey questionnaire consisting of two parts: participants’ general information and their reactions to teachers’ CF. It was found that students had positive feelings towards CF, and that they gave the most attention to the problems at the micro-level. They believed that teacher CF could help them greatly with revision in organization, vocabulary, and grammar, but that it was not so helpful with problems in content. Failure to comprehend or make corrections based on their teacher CF was reported. In such cases, some students tended to employ very limited strategies, or they responded to CF in a passive manner. Accordingly, it is suggested that further qualitative research also be conducted to obtain a fuller and finer picture of students’ reactions to their teacher’s CF on their writings.

This research is taken from a classroom-based study on how the indirect approach in written corrective feedback (CF) differs from the direct approach in facilitating the learning of grammatical features in L2 writing. Eleven university students from a writing class were divided into three groups based on TOEIC scores. After writing narrative assignments, they were given three different types of feedback: direct, indirect, and metalinguistic. The participants were asked to revise their writings after receiving indirect CF and metalinguistic CF. Immediately after revising, they were also asked to answer an open-ended questionnaire on the feedback type. Their revisions and corrections were analyzed according to use of indefinite articles, and different feedback types showed slightly different reactions and attitudes. The highlevel students were not influenced much by the feedback type, while the mid- and low-level students favored the indirect approach for their thinking processes, and benefited from metalinguistic CF in the revision sessions. The indirect approach appeared to be more effective, if implemented appropriately, increasing working memory for self-regulated L2 writing processes.

In second language writing, while much research has focused on teachers’ act of feedback per se, scant attention has been paid to how they attempt to bring innovation to their feedback practices and how they cope with the contextual challenges arising from the innovation. This study seeks to explore two teachers’ perspectives on their own attempts at innovative feedback approaches in their writing classrooms. Drawing on data gathered from individual teacher interviews and their personal reflections, the results of the study show that their engagement in feedback innovation served as a significant source of their continuing professional development. While they encountered some challenges during the innovation, they also exercised their professional agency to address these challenges and reaped benefits from their innovative attempts. The paper concludes with some implications for feedback innovation in EFL contexts and how teachers can be supported in their continuing efforts to develop effective feedback approaches in writing.

This study examined the effects of peer feedback combined with teacher feedback on L2 writing. From a review of related studies, several factors were selected as predictors of L2 writing proficiency: L2 knowledge and composition skills, L2writing anxiety, and metacognitive knowledge on L2 writing. Participants were 75college students, who were randomly assigned to the experimental or the control group. Both groups received teacher feedback, while the experimental group performed peer feedback activities, and the control group did self-reflective revision in addition. Data were collected from teacher and peer feedback, timed writing, an L2writing anxiety survey, and evaluation of a sample essay. A statistical analysis revealed differences between teacher and peer feedback. Peer feedback combined with teacher feedback appeared to be beneficial for increasing L2 knowledge and lowering L2 writing anxiety. In the regression analysis, writing anxiety predicted the level of L2 knowledge and composition skills. Based on the findings, implications for L2 writing class and suggestions for future studies are presented.

Engl ish as a Foreign Language (EFL) students in traditional second language (L2) writing classrooms are not provided sufficient opportunities for giving and receiving peer feedback. To compensate for this limitation, blended learning has been suggested in the L2 writing classroom. However, there has been little research on peer feedback in blended learning in L2 writing. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the patterns of peer feedback and the impact of peer feedback on revisions in blended leaming in L2 writing. The subjects for the qualitative study consisted of three university students, representing low- intermediate, intermediate, and advanced levels of English writing proficiency. Data sources included student-produced feedback in online and offline sessions, 18 drafts in process-oriented writing, classroom observations, and the interview. The major fi ndings of the study are as fo llows. First, the students produced more onl ine peer feedback than offline peer feedback. Second, they provided more fonn-focused feedback in online sessions, but more meaning-focused feedback in offline sessions. Third, they incorporated online peer feedback in their second drafts more than offline peer feedback in the final drafts. Based on the findings, implications are considered and suggestions are made for the effective use of peer feedback in blended learning in L2 writing .

This study investigated which type of corrective feedback, direct feedback or indirect feedback, would be more effective for reducing the targeted errors−verb, noun, and determiner errors−in L2 writing. The 20 Korean EFL college students were divided into two feedback conditions: direct feedback and indirect coded feedback. The results of the study showed that only the errors in the noun category, not the other two categories, showed a significant decrease over time. There were no significant differences in the effect of the differential feedback. The post surveys and interviews revealed that the students in both groups had difficulty in understanding their errors and feedback on them, and they wanted to receive a more detailed explanation about their errors in order to fully understand them. The overall findings indicate that different types of corrective feedback need to be combined with other methods such as a one-to-one conference or mini-lesson for further helping students understand their errors and reduce other errors in the future. This study provides L2 teachers with valuable information on how to respond more effectively to the needs of L2 learners.

The purpose of the study is to report and share a reflection on using the ETS Criterion online writing evaluation system in a university setting and evaluate if this system can be a suitable teaching/learning tool for English language learners (ELLs) in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context to facilitate their writing ability. Participants were given a writing prompt to write about in class and entered their writing into the Criterion system to receive feedback. Both quantitative and interpretive analyses were conducted for 129 student writing samples and Trait Feedback Analysis reports. The study revealed that the sentence-level feedback appears to be in urgent need for EFL writers, but Criterion did not provide this kind of feedback. Errors in such aspects as basic sentence structures, subject-verb relationship, awkward meaning construction, and formulaic expressions could not be treated by Criterion at all. In addition, the comparison of teacher feedback and Criterion feedback were discussed in details. This study alerts users to contemplate before use what the purpose of using Criterion is, whether for diagnosis of writing proficiency or as a teaching/learning tool for developing students’ writing ability. Plus, educators should be aware of on which language aspects and features EFL writers necessitate feedback to facilitate their writing development, different from first language (L1) writers.