Wang Zehua, Han Feifei
School of Foreign Languages, Shaanxi Xueqian Normal University, Xi'an, China.
Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, QLD, Australia.
Front Psychol. 2022 Jul 28;13:909802. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.909802. eCollection 2022.
Feedback plays a crucial role in the writing processes. However, in the literature on foreign language (FL) writing, there is a dearth of studies that compare the effects of teacher feedback and automated feedback on both cognitive and psychological aspects of FL writing. To fill this gap, the current study compared the effects of teacher feedback and automated feedback on both revision quality and writing proficiency development (i.e., the cognitive aspects), and perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the feedback (i.e., the psychological aspects) in English writing among English learners as an FL (EFLs) in China. It also investigated students' perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the two types of feedback. The study adopted a mixed-methods design. The quantitative method collected the data through (1) a pre-test and a post-test, which measured the participants' English writing proficiency development; (2) a writing task, which received either teacher feedback or automated feedback; and (3) a close-ended questionnaire, which examined students' perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the feedback. The qualitative method collected the data through an open-ended questionnaire, which examined the participants' perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of teacher feedback or automated feedback depending on the type of feedback they received. Chinese university EFLs in two English classes ( = 35 in each class) taught by the same English teacher participated in the study: one class received teacher feedback while the other received automated feedback using Pigaiwang. While the students in the two classes did not differ significantly on the pre-test of students' writing proficiency, students who received teacher feedback scored significantly higher on revision than those who received automated feedback. Students in the teacher feedback class also had significantly higher ratings on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the feedback than those in the automated feedback class. However, students in the automated feedback class obtained significantly higher scores on the post-test of the writing proficiency. The qualitative results identified three themes of strengths and two themes of weaknesses for the teacher feedback and the automated feedback, respectively. The results suggest that while teacher feedback has a more positive effect on the psychological aspect of FL writing, automated feedback may be more effective in developing FL writing proficiency in the long run.
反馈在写作过程中起着至关重要的作用。然而，在外语写作的文献中，缺乏比较教师反馈和自动反馈对外语写作认知和心理方面影响的研究。为了填补这一空白，本研究比较了教师反馈和自动反馈对中国英语学习者（EFLs）英语写作中修改质量和写作能力发展（即认知方面），以及反馈的感知有用性和感知易用性（即心理方面）的影响。研究还调查了学生对这两种反馈优缺点的看法。本研究采用了混合研究设计。定量方法通过以下方式收集数据：（1）一项前测和一项后测，测量参与者的英语写作能力发展；（2）一项写作任务，该任务接受教师反馈或自动反馈；（3）一份封闭式问卷，考察学生对反馈的感知有用性和感知易用性。定性方法通过一份开放式问卷收集数据，该问卷根据参与者收到的反馈类型，考察他们对教师反馈或自动反馈优缺点的看法。由同一位英语教师授课的两个英语班的中国大学EFLs（每个班n = 35）参与了本研究：一个班接受教师反馈，另一个班使用批改网接受自动反馈。虽然两个班的学生在写作能力前测中没有显著差异，但接受教师反馈的学生在修改方面的得分显著高于接受自动反馈的学生。教师反馈班的学生在反馈的感知有用性和感知易用性方面的评分也显著高于自动反馈班的学生。然而，自动反馈班的学生在写作能力后测中获得了显著更高的分数。定性结果分别确定了教师反馈和自动反馈的三个优点主题和两个缺点主题。结果表明，虽然教师反馈在外语写作的心理方面有更积极的影响，但从长远来看，自动反馈在提高外语写作能力方面可能更有效。
