Inicio
todoELE
  • Inicio
  • Materiales
    • πŸ“‹ Actividades
    • πŸ“ Conjugación
    • πŸ“Š Corpus
    • πŸ“” Diccionarios
    • βœ… Evaluación
    • βš™οΈ Gramática
    • πŸ“— Manuales
    • ✍️ Ortografía
    • πŸ“… Programación
    • πŸ—£οΈ Pronunciación
    • πŸ“ Recursos
    • πŸ”€ Vocabulario
    • πŸ’» Herramientas digitales
  • Formación
    • πŸ“š Bibliografía
    • πŸ‘₯ Congresos
    • πŸŽ“ Cursos
    • 🏫 Centros
    • 🏒 Organizaciones
    • πŸ“° Revistas
    • 🌍 Atlas de ELE
  • Trabajo
    • πŸ’Ό Ofertas de trabajo
    • ℹ️ Trabajo - Recursos
  • En la red
    • 🌐 Sitios ELE
    • πŸ“° Agregador
    • πŸ“§ Formespa
  • IA
    • ✨ Nuevos contenidos
    • πŸ“š Bibliografía IA
    • 🧰 Herramientas IA
    • πŸ’¬ Prompts
    • πŸ§ͺ Experiencias IA
    • 🌐 Sitios web IA
    • πŸ“° Actualidad IA
  • Comunidad
    • πŸ“° Actualidad ELE
    • 😊 Anécdotas ELE
    • πŸ“ Blog
    • πŸ“ŒTablón de anuncios
  • Buscar

Ruta de navegación

  • Inicio
  • Bibliografia
  • Instructor feedback on free writing and automated corrective feedback in drills: Intensity and efficacy

Instructor feedback on free writing and automated corrective feedback in drills: Intensity and efficacy

Jianwu Gao
Shuang Ma
2022
Language Teaching Research
26-5
986-1009
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117…
artículo
estudio experimental
estudio empírico
enseñanza/aprendizaje de lenguas
feedback/retroalimentación
CALL/ELAO
expresión escrita
atención a la forma
gramática

This study investigated the intensity and efficacy of automated corrective feedback (CF) in a tutorial CALL (computer-assisted language learning) environment during form-focused drills as compared with those of instructor CF on free writing in the classroom. The English simple past tense, a previously learned target structure, was selected as the target structure. A hundred and fifty-two Chinese intermediate learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) were randomly assigned to six groups and completed three writing tasks: a pretest, an immediate posttest, and a delayed posttest. The six groups included two automated feedback groups (direct correction on an error-correction test and metalinguistic feedback on an error-correction test), two feedback-on-writing groups (direct correction and metalinguistic feedback), a group who completed the error-correction test with no feedback, and a control group who participated in none of the interventions. The results showed that the error-correction test provided the participants with more intensive CF exposure than the writing task. However, the groups that received CF in the writing task were the only groups that performed better than the control in subsequent written production. Post hoc analyses of the production data revealed that the metalinguistic-feedback-on-writing group’s improvement could be attributable to error avoidance.

  • Inicie sesión para enviar comentarios

Enviar publicación

Contenidos relacionados

  • Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: a computer-assisted study
  • Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study
  • Tracking EFL children’s learning: A longitudinal study of noticing and incorporation of features in model-based and self-correction tasks
  • Maximizing the benefits of peer interaction: Form-focused instruction and peer feedback training
  • Noticing, models, written recasts, the sociocognitive-transformative approach, and EFL writing: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency
  • Spoken grammar practice in CALL: The effect of corrective feedback and education level in adult L2 learning
Sobre Todoele Índice Publica Contacto: todoele@gmail.com
Política de privacidad Créditos