学生对语法的认知,教师的间接和直接反馈:机器反馈的可能性

Q1 Arts and Humanities
T. Kawashima
{"title":"学生对语法的认知,教师的间接和直接反馈:机器反馈的可能性","authors":"T. Kawashima","doi":"10.29140/jaltcall.v19n1.1017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Empirical data on automated writing evaluation (AWE) has been accumulating over the past several years, but previous research has concentrated on the impact of using machine feedback alone, and only a little is known about how learners view the usage of AI-assisted tools when combined with teacher feedback. More empirical evidence from instances in which machine and teacher feedback is used in combination is necessary to determine optimal approaches to incorporating AWE tools in classroom instruction. A study was conducted to assess Japanese college students’ perceptions of three types of feedback when they experienced them in a certain order. Participants in two groups received Grammarly feedback on their first drafts, the teacher’s indirect feedback on their second drafts, and the teacher’s direct feedback on their third drafts. The questionnaire administered to the first group examined participant perceptions of the respective type of feedback, whereas the questionnaire given to the second group verified the strengths and weaknesses of each type of feedback and investigated the type of feedback participants believed was most effective in improving their writing in English. The content analysis approach was used for textual analysis of the responses to open-ended questions, and a chi-square test was performed for scale responses. The quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaire data revealed that, though machine feedback was favorably received, participants appreciated human direct and indirect feedback more highly for its appropriateness and reliability. Moreover, the largest number of participants rated the teacher’s direct feedback as the most beneficial to their writing progress. The findings imply that machine feedback should not be used alone in writing instruction but as a supplement to teacher feedback. In addition, the participants’ response suggests that using Grammarly feedback in a “form then content” sequence might be one feasible pedagogical approach in the classroom.","PeriodicalId":37946,"journal":{"name":"JALT CALL Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Student perceptions of Grammarly, teacher’s indirect and direct feedback: Possibility of machine feedback\",\"authors\":\"T. Kawashima\",\"doi\":\"10.29140/jaltcall.v19n1.1017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Empirical data on automated writing evaluation (AWE) has been accumulating over the past several years, but previous research has concentrated on the impact of using machine feedback alone, and only a little is known about how learners view the usage of AI-assisted tools when combined with teacher feedback. More empirical evidence from instances in which machine and teacher feedback is used in combination is necessary to determine optimal approaches to incorporating AWE tools in classroom instruction. A study was conducted to assess Japanese college students’ perceptions of three types of feedback when they experienced them in a certain order. Participants in two groups received Grammarly feedback on their first drafts, the teacher’s indirect feedback on their second drafts, and the teacher’s direct feedback on their third drafts. The questionnaire administered to the first group examined participant perceptions of the respective type of feedback, whereas the questionnaire given to the second group verified the strengths and weaknesses of each type of feedback and investigated the type of feedback participants believed was most effective in improving their writing in English. The content analysis approach was used for textual analysis of the responses to open-ended questions, and a chi-square test was performed for scale responses. The quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaire data revealed that, though machine feedback was favorably received, participants appreciated human direct and indirect feedback more highly for its appropriateness and reliability. Moreover, the largest number of participants rated the teacher’s direct feedback as the most beneficial to their writing progress. The findings imply that machine feedback should not be used alone in writing instruction but as a supplement to teacher feedback. In addition, the participants’ response suggests that using Grammarly feedback in a “form then content” sequence might be one feasible pedagogical approach in the classroom.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37946,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JALT CALL Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JALT CALL Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v19n1.1017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JALT CALL Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v19n1.1017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的几年里,关于自动写作评估(AWE)的经验数据一直在积累,但之前的研究主要集中在单独使用机器反馈的影响上,对于学习者如何看待与教师反馈相结合的人工智能辅助工具的使用,我们知之甚少。有必要从结合使用机器和教师反馈的实例中获得更多的经验证据,以确定将AWE工具纳入课堂教学的最佳方法。一项研究评估了日本大学生在按一定顺序经历三种反馈时对反馈的感知。两组参与者收到了第一稿的语法反馈,老师对第二稿的间接反馈,老师对第三稿的直接反馈。给第一组的问卷调查了参与者对各自反馈类型的看法,而给第二组的问卷调查了每种反馈类型的优缺点,并调查了参与者认为最有效的反馈类型,以提高他们的英语写作。开放性问题的回答采用内容分析法进行文本分析,量表回答采用卡方检验。问卷数据的定量和定性分析显示,虽然机器反馈受到欢迎,但参与者更欣赏人类直接和间接反馈的适当性和可靠性。此外,大多数参与者认为老师的直接反馈对他们的写作进步最有益。研究结果表明,机器反馈不应单独用于写作教学,而应作为教师反馈的补充。此外,参与者的反应表明,以“形式然后内容”的顺序使用语法反馈可能是课堂上一种可行的教学方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Student perceptions of Grammarly, teacher’s indirect and direct feedback: Possibility of machine feedback
Empirical data on automated writing evaluation (AWE) has been accumulating over the past several years, but previous research has concentrated on the impact of using machine feedback alone, and only a little is known about how learners view the usage of AI-assisted tools when combined with teacher feedback. More empirical evidence from instances in which machine and teacher feedback is used in combination is necessary to determine optimal approaches to incorporating AWE tools in classroom instruction. A study was conducted to assess Japanese college students’ perceptions of three types of feedback when they experienced them in a certain order. Participants in two groups received Grammarly feedback on their first drafts, the teacher’s indirect feedback on their second drafts, and the teacher’s direct feedback on their third drafts. The questionnaire administered to the first group examined participant perceptions of the respective type of feedback, whereas the questionnaire given to the second group verified the strengths and weaknesses of each type of feedback and investigated the type of feedback participants believed was most effective in improving their writing in English. The content analysis approach was used for textual analysis of the responses to open-ended questions, and a chi-square test was performed for scale responses. The quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaire data revealed that, though machine feedback was favorably received, participants appreciated human direct and indirect feedback more highly for its appropriateness and reliability. Moreover, the largest number of participants rated the teacher’s direct feedback as the most beneficial to their writing progress. The findings imply that machine feedback should not be used alone in writing instruction but as a supplement to teacher feedback. In addition, the participants’ response suggests that using Grammarly feedback in a “form then content” sequence might be one feasible pedagogical approach in the classroom.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JALT CALL Journal
JALT CALL Journal Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The JALT CALL Journal is an international refereed journal committed to excellence in research in all areas within the field of Computer Assisted Language Learning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信