Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T14:46:51.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Technology-Mediated Corrective Feedback

from Part III - Different Delivery Modes of Corrective Feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Trude Heift  and
Phuong Nguyen
Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides an overview of technology-mediated corrective feedback by focusing on spelling, grammar and writing, and pronunciation. Our overview of the technologies along with the research that has been conducted shows that significant progress has been made over the past decades in assisting students with their L2 language studies. Nevertheless, there is room for further research which we identify in each respective section. Most importantly, however, we conclude that studies need to investigate the long-term efficacy of technology-mediated feedback when students use these tools in the language learning classroom or outside independently. In addition, technology-mediated corrective feedback is by no means 100% accurate and learners need guidance from language instructors, especially with regards to learning not to overly rely on the technology.

Keywords

Corrective feedbacklearner-computer interactionstutorial CALLspellingautomatic writing evaluationautomatic speech recognition
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 226 - 250
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amaral, L. and Meurers, D. (2011). On using intelligent computer-assisted language learning in real-life foreign language teaching and learning. ReCALL, 23(1), 4–24.Google Scholar
Anderson-Hsieh, J. (1994). Interpreting visual feedback on suprasegmentals in computer assisted pronunciation instruction. CALICO Journal, 11(4), 5–21.Google Scholar
Audacity (n.d.). www.audacityteam.org/ (accessed on March 6, 2018).Google Scholar
Bestgen, Y. & Granger, S. (2011). Categorising spelling errors to assess L2 writing. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 21(2–3), 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. DOI:10.1016/jslw.2007.11.004.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2012). Written corrective feedback for L2 development: Current knowledge and future research. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 855–860. DOI:10.1002/tesq.62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patron, Bon (n.d.). http://bonpatron.com/ (accessed March 15, 2018).Google Scholar
Brett, D. (2004). Computer generated feedback on vowel production by learners of English as a second language. ReCALL, 16(1), 103–113. DOI:10.1017/s0958344004000813.Google Scholar
Brill, E. & Moore, R.C. (2000). An improved error model for noisy channel spelling correction. In Proceedings of 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong, China, October 2000 (pp. 286–293). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Burston, J. (1998). Antidote 98 [review]. CALICO Journal, 16(2), 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burston, J. (2001). Exploiting the potential of a computer-based grammar checker in conjunction with self-monitoring strategies with advanced level students of French. CALICO Journal, 18(3), 499–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, M. (2004). CALL Visual feedback for pronunciation of vowels: Kay Sona-Match. CALICO Journal, 21(3), 1–32.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2018, March 26). Week 5: Technology & Writing (Part 1). [Video file]. https://youtu.be/vJ5KSMT5m8A.Google Scholar
Chun, D. M. (1998). Signal analysis software of teaching discourse intonation. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 74–93. http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/article4/.Google Scholar
Chun, D. M. (2007). Come ride the wave: But where is it taking us? CALICO Journal, 24(2), 239–252.Google Scholar
Coniam, D. (1999). Voice recognition software accuracy with second language speakers of English. System, 27(1), 49–64.Google Scholar
Coniam, D. (2002). Technology as an awareness-raising tool for sensitising teachers to features of stress and rhythm in English, Language Awareness, 11(1), 30–42. DOI:10.1080/09658410208667044.Google Scholar
Cucchiarini, C., Neri, A. & Strik, H. (2009). Oral proficiency training in Dutch L2: The contribution of ASR-based corrective feedback. Speech Communication, 51(10), 853–863.Google Scholar
Dagneaux, E., Denness, S. & Granger, S. (1998). Computer-aided error analysis. System, 26(2), 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalby, J. & Kewley-Port, D. (1999). Explicit pronunciation training using automatic speech recognition technology. CALICO, 16(3), 425–445.Google Scholar
Damerau, F. J. (1964). A technique for computer detection and correction of spelling errors. Communications of the ACM, 7(3), 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dikli, S. (2010). The nature of automated essay scoring feedback. CALICO Journal, 28(1), 99–134.Google Scholar
Dikli, S. & Bleyle, S. (2014). Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback? Assessing Writing, 22, 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.006.Google Scholar
Ehsani, F. & Knodt, E. (1998). Speech technology in computer-aided language learning: Strengths and limitations of a new CALL paradigm. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 54–73.Google Scholar
Engwall, O. (2012). Analysis of and feedback on phonetic features in pronunciation training with a virtual teacher. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1), 37–64. DOI:10.1080/09588221.2011.582845.Google Scholar
Eskenazi, M. (1999). Using Automatic Speech Processing for foreign language pronunciation tutoring: Some issues and a prototype. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 62–76.Google Scholar
eSpindle (n.d.). www.espindle.org/ (accessed March 15, 2018).Google Scholar
Fallman, D. (2002). The Penguin: Using the web as a database for descriptive and dynamic grammar and spell checking. Paper presented at the CHI 2002, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Minneapolis, MN, April 20–25, 2002.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. DOI:10.1017/s0272263109990490.Google Scholar
Flor, M. & Futagi, Y. (2012). On using context for automatic correction of non-word misspellings in student essays. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (BEA), 105–115, Montréal, Canada, June 3-8, 2012.Google Scholar
Flor, M. & Futagi, Y. (2013). Producing an annotated corpus with automatic spelling correction. In Granger, S., Gilquin, G. & Meunier, F. (eds.), Twenty years of learner corpus research: Looking back, moving ahead. corpora and language in use (pp. 139–154). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Godwin-Jones, R. (2009). Emerging technology: Speech tools and technologies. Language Learning & Technology, 13(3), 4–11. http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num3/emerging.pdf.Google Scholar
Hardison, D. (2004). Contextualized computer-based L2 prosody training: Evaluating the effects of discourse context and video input. CALICO Journal, 22(2), 175–190.Google Scholar
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D. & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84–109. DOI:10.5054/tq.2010.213781.Google Scholar
Heift, T. (2010). Developing an intelligent tutor. CALICO Journal, 27(3), 443–459.Google Scholar
Heift, T. & Hegelheimer, V. (2017). Computer-assisted corrected feedback and language learning. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 51–65). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heift, T. & Schulze, M. (2015). Tutorial computer-assisted language learning.Language Teaching, 48(4), 471–490. DOI:10.1017/S0261444815000245.Google Scholar
Helfrich, A. & Music, B. (2000). Design and evaluation of grammar checkers in multiple languages. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2000), Vol. II (pp. 1036–1040). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. www.aclweb.org/anthology/C00-2153/.Google Scholar
Hincks, R. (2003). Speech technologies for pronunciation feedback and evaluation. ReCALL, 15(1), 3–20. DOI:10.1017/s0958344003000211.Google Scholar
Hirata, Y. (2004). Computer assisted pronunciation training for native English speakers learning Japanese pitch and durational contrasts. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(3–4), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958822042000319629.Google Scholar
Hodge, V. J. and Austin, J. (2003): A comparison of standard spell checking algorithms and a novel binary neural approach. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 15(5), 1073–1081.Google Scholar
Hovermale, D. J. (2008). SCALE: Spelling correction adapted for learners of English. Poster presentation at ICALL Special Interest Group pre-conference workshop, CALICO conference, March 18–22, San Francisco, USA.Google Scholar
Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. In Fotos, S. & Browne, C. (eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 45–67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hubbard, P. (2013). Making a case for learner training in technology enhanced language learning environments. CALICO Journal, 30(2), 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, I. S. (2006). Automatic speech recognition: Reliability and pedagogical implications for teaching pronunciation. Educational Technology and Society, 9(1), 322–344.Google Scholar
Kommissarchik, J. & Komissarchik, E. (2000). Better accent tutor: Analysis and visualization of speech prosody. Proceedings of InSTILL 2000 (pp. 86–89). Dundee, Scotland.Google Scholar
Kukich, K. (1992). Techniques for automatically correcting words in text. ACM Computing Surveys, 24(4), 377–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Lawley, J. (2016). Spelling: Computerised feedback for self-correction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 868–880. DOI:10.1080/09588221.2015.1069746.Google Scholar
Leacock, C., Chodorow, M., Gamon, M. & Tetreault, , J. (2010). Automated grammatical error detection for language learners. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar
Levis, J. (2007). Computer technology in teaching and researching pronunciation. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 184–202. DOI:10.1017/S0267190508070098.Google Scholar
Levis, J. & Pickering, L. (2004). Teaching intonation in discourse using speech visualization technology. System, 32(4), 505–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
L’haire, S. (2007). Fipsortho: A spell checker for learners of French. ReCALL, 19(3), 137–161.Google Scholar
Liakin, D., Cardoso, W. & Liakina, N. (2015). Learning L2 pronunciation with a mobile speech recognizer: French /y/. CALICO Journal, 32(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Link, S., Dursun, A., Karakaya, K. & Hegelheimer, V. (2014). Towards best ESL practices for implementing automated writing evaluation. CALICO Journal, 31(3), 323–344.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott’s “What’s wrong with oral grammar correction.” Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitton, R. & Okada, T. (2007). The adaptation of an English spellchecker for Japanese writers. Paper presented at the Symposium on Second Language Writing. Nagoya, Japan, September 15–17, 2007.Google Scholar
Moats, L. (2005).How spelling supports reading and why it is more regular and predictable than you may think. American Educator, 29(4), 12–22.Google Scholar
Murphy-Judy, K. (2003). Sans-faute writing environment [review]. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 209–220.Google Scholar
Nagata, N. (2009). Robo-Sensei’s NLP-based error detection and feedback generation. CALICO Journal, 26(3), 562–579.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ndiaye, M. & Vandeventer Faltin, A. (2003). A spell checker tailored to language learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(2–3), 213–232.Google Scholar
Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C. & Strik, H. (2008). The effectiveness of computer-based speech corrective feedback for improving segmental quality in L2 Dutch. ReCALL, 20(2). DOI:10.1017/s0958344008000724.Google Scholar
Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H. & Boves, L. (2002). The pedagogy–technology interface in computer assisted pronunciation training. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(5), 441–467.Google Scholar
Nicholas, N., Debski, R. & Lagerberg, R. (2004). Skryba: An online orthography teaching tool for learners from bilingual backgrounds. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(3–4), 441–458.Google Scholar
Offerman, H. M. & Olson, D. J. (2016). Visual feedback and second language segmental production: The generalizability of pronunciation gains. System, 59, 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.03.003.Google Scholar
Olmanson, J. (2007). Review of eSpindle vocabulary & spelling program online. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 18–28.Google Scholar
Olson, D. J. (2014). Benefits of visual feedback on segmental production in the L2 classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 173–192. http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2014/olson.pdfGoogle Scholar
O’Shaughnessy, D. (2008). Invited paper: Automatic speech recognition: History, methods and challenges. Pattern Recognition, 41(10), 2965–2979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2008.05.008.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. J. & Zamora, A. (1984). Automatic spelling correction in scientific and scholarly text. Communications of the ACM, 27(4), 358–368.Google Scholar
Ranalli, J., Link, S. & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2017). Automated writing evaluation for formative assessment of second language writing: Investigating the accuracy and usefulness of feedback as part of argument-based validation. Educational Psychology, 37(1), 8–25. DOI:10.1080/01443410.2015.1136407.Google Scholar
Ranalli, J., Yamashita, T. & Bappe, C. (2017). Comparing the quantity and quality of automated corrective feedback provided by Grammarly versus MS Word. Paper presented at CALICO 2017, Flagstaff, USA.Google Scholar
Regular expression. (2018). In Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_expression.Google Scholar
Reinders, H. & Hubbard, P. (2013). CALL and learner autonomy: Affordance and constraints. In Thomas, M., Reinders, H. & Warschauer, M. (eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 359–376). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Rimrott, A. & Heift, T. (2008). Evaluating Automatic Detection of Misspellings in German. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 73–92.Google Scholar
Sakaguchi, K., Mizumoto, T., Komachi, M. & Matsumoto, Y. (2012). Joint English spelling error correction and POS tagging for language learners writing. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2012), Mumbai, India (pp. 2357–2374).Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Languge Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96–120.Google Scholar
Scott, C. (2000). Principles and methods of spelling instruction: Application for poor spellers. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3), 66–82.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. & Aubrey, S. C. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319.Google Scholar
Spellcheckplus (n.d.). http://spellcheckplus.com/ (accessed March 15, 2018).Google Scholar
Stevenson, M. & Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 51–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007.Google Scholar
Stirling, J. (2011). Teaching spelling to English language learners. Raleigh, NC: Lulu.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 437.Google Scholar
Wachowicz, K., & Scott, B. (1999). Software that listens: It’s not a question of whether, it’s a question of how. CALICO Journal, 16(3), 253–276. www.jstor.org/stable/24147843.Google Scholar
Walker, N. R., Trofimovich, P., Cedergren, H. & Gatbonton, E. (2011). Using ASR technology in language training for specific purposes: A perspective from Quebec, Canada. CALICO Journal, 28(3), 721–743.Google Scholar
Wang, Y.-H. & Young, S. S.-C. (2014). A study of the design and implementation of the ASR-based iCASL system with corrective feedback to facilitate English learning. Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 219–233.Google Scholar
Wang, Y.-H. & Young, S. S.-C. (2015). Effectiveness of feedback for enhancing English pronunciation in an ASR-based CALL system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 493–504. DOI:10.1111/jcal.12079.Google Scholar
WinPitch (n.d). Pitch Instruments Inc. www.winpitch.com (accessed on March 6, 2018).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×