Comparison of English Teacher Feedback and Automated Writing Feedback on the Quality of English Language Learners’ Essay Revision
Keywords:teacher feedback, automated writing feedback, English language learners, Chinese university students, essay writing, quality of revision
This study compared the effects of teacher feedback (TF) and online automated feedback (AF) on the quality of revision of English writing. It also examined the strengths and weaknesses of the two types of feedback perceived by English language learners (ELLs) as a foreign language (FL). Sixty-eight Chinese students from two English classes participated the study. The two classes received TF and online AF (Scoring Network) respectively upon completion of their draft essays. While the two classes did not differ on the English writing proficiency, the class receiving TF obtained significantly higher scores on essay revision, indicating the better effect of TF. Students’ responses showed that, overall, TF was more positively commented upon because the encouraging words motivated students to revise. In contrast, the students receiving online AF criticized the Scoring Network for their difficulty to comprehend the feedback they were provided. The results suggest that English teachers may consider using TF as a major source of feedback in English writing for ELLs in China.
Copyright (c) 2021 Feifei Han, Zehua Wang
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to the OTESSA conference agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. This licence allows this work to be copied, distributed, remixed, transformed, and built upon for any purpose provided that appropriate attribution is given, a link is provided to the license, and changes made were indicated.
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant OTESSA right of first publication.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the conference's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in OTESSA's conference proceedings.