母语和非母语人士对语法标记错误的反应:来自屏幕截图的证据

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Khaled El Ebyary El Ebyary
{"title":"母语和非母语人士对语法标记错误的反应:来自屏幕截图的证据","authors":"Khaled El Ebyary El Ebyary","doi":"10.56040/efke1921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The now ubiquitous use of advanced Web 2.0 tools in writing and the emergence of automated error flagging applications with affordances far beyond Word Processing requires some attention from both L2 researchers and L2 tutors, especially when both native (skilled) writers and non-native (less skilled) writers have, reportedly, started to use various commercial and freemium technological tools that claim to provide automated written corrective feedback. In fact, little is known about tracking writers’ editing behaviour when automated error flagging is in place and whether such behaviour would vary between native and non-native writers. Using a pre-post activity interview, an IELTS writing task 2 and screen capture software, the current case study compared the editing behaviours of native and non-native speakers of English when Grammarly was used. Major results revealed that native speakers had overall more flagged errors than non-native speakers did, but the latter group had more grammar errors flagged. However, the two groups followed a similar pattern in reacting to the flagged errors. Both native and non-native writers accepted suggestions from Grammarly. The study also suggests that evidence is needed with regard to teachers’ roles in and learners’ uptake from error flagging applications.","PeriodicalId":38893,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Native and Non-native Speakers’ Reaction to Errors Flagged by Grammarly: Evidence from Screen Capture\",\"authors\":\"Khaled El Ebyary El Ebyary\",\"doi\":\"10.56040/efke1921\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The now ubiquitous use of advanced Web 2.0 tools in writing and the emergence of automated error flagging applications with affordances far beyond Word Processing requires some attention from both L2 researchers and L2 tutors, especially when both native (skilled) writers and non-native (less skilled) writers have, reportedly, started to use various commercial and freemium technological tools that claim to provide automated written corrective feedback. In fact, little is known about tracking writers’ editing behaviour when automated error flagging is in place and whether such behaviour would vary between native and non-native writers. Using a pre-post activity interview, an IELTS writing task 2 and screen capture software, the current case study compared the editing behaviours of native and non-native speakers of English when Grammarly was used. Major results revealed that native speakers had overall more flagged errors than non-native speakers did, but the latter group had more grammar errors flagged. However, the two groups followed a similar pattern in reacting to the flagged errors. Both native and non-native writers accepted suggestions from Grammarly. The study also suggests that evidence is needed with regard to teachers’ roles in and learners’ uptake from error flagging applications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38893,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56040/efke1921\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56040/efke1921","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现在先进的Web 2.0工具在写作中的普遍使用,以及自动错误标记应用程序的出现,其功能远远超出了文字处理的范围,这需要第二语言研究者和第二语言导师的一些关注,特别是当母语(熟练的)作家和非母语(不熟练的)作家都开始使用各种声称可以提供自动书面纠正反馈的商业和免费技术工具时。事实上,当有了自动错误标记时,我们几乎不知道如何跟踪作者的编辑行为,也不知道这种行为在母语和非母语作者之间是否会有所不同。本案例研究采用活动前后访谈、雅思写作任务2和屏幕截图软件,比较了使用Grammarly时母语和非母语英语人士的编辑行为。主要结果显示,总体而言,以英语为母语的人比非以英语为母语的人有更多的错误,但后者有更多的语法错误。然而,这两个小组对标记错误的反应模式相似。母语和非母语作家都接受了Grammarly的建议。该研究还表明,关于教师在错误标记应用程序中的作用和学习者的吸收,需要证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Native and Non-native Speakers’ Reaction to Errors Flagged by Grammarly: Evidence from Screen Capture
The now ubiquitous use of advanced Web 2.0 tools in writing and the emergence of automated error flagging applications with affordances far beyond Word Processing requires some attention from both L2 researchers and L2 tutors, especially when both native (skilled) writers and non-native (less skilled) writers have, reportedly, started to use various commercial and freemium technological tools that claim to provide automated written corrective feedback. In fact, little is known about tracking writers’ editing behaviour when automated error flagging is in place and whether such behaviour would vary between native and non-native writers. Using a pre-post activity interview, an IELTS writing task 2 and screen capture software, the current case study compared the editing behaviours of native and non-native speakers of English when Grammarly was used. Major results revealed that native speakers had overall more flagged errors than non-native speakers did, but the latter group had more grammar errors flagged. However, the two groups followed a similar pattern in reacting to the flagged errors. Both native and non-native writers accepted suggestions from Grammarly. The study also suggests that evidence is needed with regard to teachers’ roles in and learners’ uptake from error flagging applications.
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
Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching
Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: e-FLT is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Centre for Language Studies of the National University of Singapore. Its primary objective is to disseminate scholarly information on research and development in the field of Second and Foreign Language Teaching and Learning in Asia and beyond. It publishes articles and book reviews in English as well as in any of the following twelve languages taught at the Centre for Language Studies: Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Hindi, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Malay, Tamil, Thai and Vietnamese. It will also welcome any information on upcoming academic conferences, seminars or symposiums as a service to its readers. It is unique in that it is multilingual and practises the policy of accepting and publishing articles in twelve different languages. There will be two issues of e-FLT a year, appearing in the months of June and December. e-FLT is published electronically in the Internet to allow it to reach a wider audience in Asia and the rest of the world, while keeping production costs to a minimum, making it possible to grant free access to the journal. e-FLT focuses primarily on – but is not restricted to – the following areas of inquiry and development in Second and Foreign Language Teaching and Learning: Teaching Methodologies Curriculum Development and Syllabus Design Materials Design Teacher Education and Professional Development Theories of Second Language Acquisition Theories of Second and Foreign Language Teaching Innovations/New Technologies in Language Teaching Linguistics Theories and Language Teaching.
×
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