CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and TeachingStudent Assessment and Feedback

AUTOMATED FEEDBACK AND TEACHER FEEDBACK: WRITING ACHIEVEMENT IN LEARNING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE AT A DISTANCE

Open access
TASKIRAN, Ayse, GOKSEL, Nil·2022·Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education
DOI 10.17718/tojde.1096260
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Information and communication technologies have been transforming the way we teach and learn. Either for facilitating teaching practices or for making learning more interesting and joyful for the learners, artificial intelligence-based applications are utilized in recent years. In this connection, this study intends to examine if automated feedback and teacher feedback contribute to academic writing achievement and whether they differ in their effect on achievement in learning English as a foreign language in an open and distant learning context. The participants of the study were open education faculty students in a higher education institution in Turkey. In this quasi-experimental quantitative study repeated measures design was adopted. the participants were given writing tasks each week in a nine-week writing activity and they received feedback from their English language teachers for the first three tasks, and they received feedback from the software for the last three tasks. All participants wrote an English text as a diagnostic test at the beginning of the process. At the end of the teacher and software feedback phases, they took post-tests. All grades were statistically analyzed in order to find any effect of regular feedback either from a language teacher or from an online software on academic writing achievement. Results revealed significant differences between the diagnostic test and two achievement tests. Participants tended to improve their academic writing skills by taking regular feedback, and it was observed that the writing scores increased slightly more when receiving feedback from teachers compared to automated feedback software.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17718/tojde.1096260

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. [12]12. 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. Retrieved from llt.msu.edu/vol12num2/chencheng.pdf
  2. [13]13. Cheng, G. (2017). The impact of online automated feedback on students' reflective journal writing in an EFL course. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 18-27.
  3. [14]14. Cheng, G., Law, E., & Wong, T. L. (2016, December). Investigating effects of automated feedback on EFL students' reflective learning skills. Paper presented at 2016 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 226-230). IEEE.
  4. [15]15. Chodorow, M., Gamon, M., & Tetreault, J. (2010). The utility of article and preposition error correction systems for English language learners: Feedback and assessment. Language Testing, 27(3), 419-436.
  5. [16]16. Cotos, E. (2011). Potential of automated writing evaluation feedback. Calico Journal, 28(2), 420-459.
  6. [17]17. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA Pearson.
  7. [18]18. Czaplewski, A. (2009). Computer-assisted grading rubrics: automating the process of providing comments and student feedback. Marketing Education Review, 19(1), 29-36.
  8. [20]20. D'antoni, L., Kini, D., Alur, R., Gulwani, S., Viswanathan, M., & Hartmann, B. (2015). How can automatic feedback help students construct automata?. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 22(2), 9.
  9. [21]21. Erkan, D. Y., & Saban, A. I. (2011). Writing performance relative to writing apprehension, self-efficacy in writing, and attitudes towards writing: A correlational study in Turkish tertiary-level EFL. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly March 2011, 13(1).
  10. [22]22. Fang, Y. (2010). Perceptions of the computer-assisted writing program among EFL college learners. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 246-256.
  11. [23]23. 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, England: Cambridge University Press.
  12. [24]24. Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in Second Language Acquisition. In J. Williams & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An introduction. (pp. 175-199). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  13. [25]25. Gebhard, J.G. (2000). Teaching English as a foreign or second language: A teacher self development and methodology guide. Ann Arbor. The University of Michigan Press.
  14. [26]26. Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onhema, P., & Smeets, S. (2010). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36, 143-162.
  15. [27]27. Goldsmith, L. (2014). Digital feedback: An integral part of the online classroom. Distance Learning, 11(2), 33.
  16. [28]28. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Santangelo, T. (2015). based writing practices and the common core: Meta- analysis and meta-synthesis. The Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 498-522.
  17. [29]29. Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 8(6), 4-43.
  18. [30]30. Hattie J and Timperley H (2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77(1): 81-112.
  19. [31]31. Hier, B. O., & Eckert, T. L. (2014). Evaluating elementary-aged students' abilities to generalize and maintain fluency gains of a performance feedback writing intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(4), 488.
  20. [32]32. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge university press.
  21. [34]34. Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 250-266.
  22. [35]35. Kellogg, R. T., Whiteford, A. P., & Quinlan, T. (2010). Does automated feedback help students to write? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42, 173-196.
  23. [36]36. Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2008). Does teachers' confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated use?. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 269-282.
  24. [37]37. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
  25. [38]38. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd.
  26. [39]39. Lavolette, E., Polio, C., & Kahng, J. (2015). The accuracy of computer-assisted feedback and students' responses to it. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 50-68. Retrieved from http://llt.msu. edu/issues/june2015/lavolettepoliokahng.pdf
  27. [40]40. Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1-18.
  28. [41]41. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  29. [43]43. Martin, S., & Valdivia, I. M. A. (2017). Students' feedback beliefs and anxiety in online foreign language oral tasks. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 18.
  30. [44]44. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systematic view of online learning (3rd Edition). Belmont, VA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
  31. [45]45. Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology: A project for the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (2nd ed., pp. 745-783). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  32. [47]47. Pica, T. (1998). Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspectives. In V. Regan (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 1-31). Dublin: University of Dublin Press.
  33. [48]48. Pintrich, P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press.
  34. [49]49. Prince, B., Makrides, L., & Richman, J. (1980). Research methodology and applied statistics. Part 2: the literature search. Physiotherapy Canada, 32(4), 201-206.
  35. [50]50. Pyke, J. G., & Sherlock, J. J. (2010). A closer look at instructor-student feedback online: A case study analysis of the types and frequency. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 110-121.
  36. [51]51. Ramaswamy, N. (2012). Online tutor for research writing. (Unpublished thesis). Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
  37. [52]52. Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of shapiro-wilk, kolmogorov-smirnov, lilliefors and anderson-darling tests. Journal of statistical modeling and analytics, 2(1), 21-33.
  38. [53]53. Scheeler, M. C., McKinnon, K., & Stout, J. (2012). Effects of immediate feedback delivered via webcam and bug-in-ear technology on preservice teacher performance. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(1), 77-90.
  39. [55]55. Sherafati, N., Largani, F. M., & Amini, S. (2020). Exploring the effect of computer-mediated teacher feedback on the writing achievement of Iranian EFL learners: Does motivation count?. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4591-4613.
  40. [56]56. Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (Eds.) (2013). Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
  41. [57]57. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), 153-189.
  42. [58]58. Simonson, M. R., Smaldino, S. E., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2006). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (3rd Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
  43. [61]61. Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2019). Automated Feedback and Second Language Writing. In Hyland & Hyland (Eds.). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues, Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  44. [62]62. Sulistyo, T., Mukminatien, N., Cahyono, B. Y., & Saukah, A. (2019). Enhancing learners' writing performance through blog-assisted language learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(09), 61-73.
  45. [63]63. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S.M. Gass & C.G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253).
  46. [65]65. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp.125-144). Oxford: Oxford University press.
  47. [69]69. Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2008). Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3(1), 22-36.
  48. [71]71. Wilson, J., Olinghouse, N. G., & Andrada, G. N. (2014). Does automated feedback improve writing quality? Learning Disabilities--A Contemporary Journal, 12(1).
  49. [72]72. Winne, P. H. (2011). A cognitive and metacognitive analysis of self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 15-32). New York: Routledge.
  50. [73]73. Wu, R. (2014). Feedback in distance education: A content analysis of Distance Education: An International Journal, 1980-2013 Unpublished doctoral thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, the USA.
  51. [74]74. Xi, X. (2010). Automated scoring and feedback systems-Where are we and where are we heading? Language Testing, 27(3), 291-300.
  52. [75]75. Yu, B. B. (2015). Incorporation of automated writing evaluation software in language education: A case of evening university students' self-regulated learning in Taiwan. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(11), 808-813.
  53. [76]76. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 1-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
TASKIRAN, A., & GOKSEL, N.
Venue
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education
Publisher
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education
Published
2022-03-30
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
120-139
ISSN
1302-6488 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.17718/tojde.1096260
OpenAlex
W4226023014
Semantic Scholar
cbec914257aafa6fee1dc34dfc5cfccc7adbd031
Cited by
61
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8
FWCI
47.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (publishedVersion)
  • DergiPark (Istanbul University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
automated feedback, teacher feedback, English as a foreign language, distance education, open and distance learning, AI-assisted language learning, writing software, university students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review