Errors in Errors: An Exploration of Grammarly's Corrective Feedback

被引:1
|
作者
Kloppers, Joshua [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Taiwan Normal Univ, Taipei, Taiwan
关键词
Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE); Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL); Second Language Acquisition (SLA); AUTOMATED WRITING EVALUATION; SYNTACTIC COMPLEXITY; ENGLISH; WRITERS;
D O I
10.4018/IJCALLT.325792
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Automated writing evaluation (AWE) software is an increasingly popular tool for English second language learners. However, research on the accuracy of such software has been both scarce and largely limited in its scope. As such, this article broadens the field of research on AWE accuracy by using a mixed design to holistically evaluate the accuracy of the corrective feedback of the leading AWE program Grammarly. 1136 Grammarly-identified errors related to style, lexis, and form were graded and discussed by two native English speakers. An overall accuracy rate of 78.86% and an accuracy rate of 91.60% when excluding style-related errors were found. However, several issues relating to the promotion of a set writing style, variance in feedback quality, and accuracy of style-related corrective feedback were also identified.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Errors in the Second Language Classroom: Corrective Feedback
    Ortega Martin, Jose Luis
    [J]. PORTA LINGUARUM, 2011, (16) : 195 - 196
  • [2] Oral corrective feedback on lexical errors: a systematic review
    Tan, Xiaochen
    Reynolds, Barry Lee
    Van Ha, Xuan
    [J]. APPLIED LINGUISTICS REVIEW, 2024, 15 (03) : 1177 - 1221
  • [3] THE EFFECT OF DIRECT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS' GRAMMATICAL ERRORS
    Nazari, Bahareh Por
    Azizifar, Akbar
    Gowhary, Habib
    [J]. MODERN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODS, 2015, 5 (04): : 14 - 21
  • [4] Learner responses to corrective feedback for spelling errors in CALL
    Heift, Trude
    Rimrott, Anne
    [J]. SYSTEM, 2008, 36 (02) : 196 - 213
  • [5] Exploring Student Errors, Teachers' Corrective Feedback, Learner Uptake and Repair, and Learners' Preferences of Corrective Feedback
    Sung, Ko-Yin
    Tsai, Hsiao-Mei
    [J]. JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING, 2014, 4 (01): : 37 - 54
  • [6] Oral Corrective Feedback on Pronunciation Errors: Implications for Teacher Trainers
    Rahmati, Payam
    Dalman, Mohammadreza
    Saeli, Hooman
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ASIA TEFL, 2023, 20 (01): : 197 - 206
  • [7] The Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on Students' Spelling Errors
    Baleghizadeh, Sasan
    Dadashi, Mehdi
    [J]. PROFILE-ISSUES IN TEACHERS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 2011, 13 (01) : 129 - 137
  • [8] Oral corrective feedback on written errors Graduated feedback vs. supplemented direct feedback
    Afshari, Sajad
    Dabaghi, Azizollah
    Ketabi, Saeed
    [J]. ITL-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS, 2020, 171 (02) : 253 - 279
  • [9] Beyond hypercorrection: remembering corrective feedback for low-confidence errors
    Griffiths, Lauren
    Higham, Philip A.
    [J]. MEMORY, 2018, 26 (02) : 201 - 218
  • [10] How do learners engage with oral corrective feedback on lexical stress errors? Effects of learner engagement on the working of corrective feedback
    Saeli, Hooman
    Dalman, Mohammadreza
    Rahmati, Payam
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN REVIEW OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS, 2020, 43 (03) : 247 - 276