L2 Learners' Engagement with Automated Feedback: An Eye-Tracking Study

Autor/inn/en	Liu, Sha; Yu, Guoxing
Titel	L2 Learners' Engagement with Automated Feedback: An Eye-Tracking Study
Quelle	In: Language Learning & Technology, 26 (2022) 2, S.78-105 (28 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
Schlagwörter	Eye Movements; Second Language Learning; Second Language Instruction; Feedback (Response); Recall (Psychology); Diaries; Learner Engagement; Peer Relationship; Scaffolding (Teaching Technique); Teaching Methods; Teacher Student Relationship; Accuracy; Writing Instruction; Revision (Written Composition); Writing Evaluation; Writing Processes; Test Preparation; Language Tests; Computer Assisted Instruction; English (Second Language); Linguistic Input; Writing Tests; Majors (Students); Undergraduate Students; Foreign Countries; Student Attitudes; Chinese; Native Language; China; International English Language Testing System + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Augenbewegung; Zweitsprachenerwerb; Fremdsprachenunterricht; Abberufung; Diary; Tagebuch; Peer-Beziehungen; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Teacher student relationships; Lehrer-Schüler-Beziehung; Schreibunterricht; Korrektur; Language test; Sprachtest; Computer based training; Computerunterstützter Unterricht; English as second language; English; Second Language; Englisch als Zweitsprache; Sprachbildung; Writing test; Schreibtest; Ausland; Schülerverhalten; China; Chinesen; Language tests; Englisch
Abstract	This study used eye-tracking, in combination with stimulated recalls and reflective journals, to investigate L2 learners' engagement with automated feedback and the impact of feedback explicitness and accuracy on their engagement. Twenty-four Chinese EFL learners revised their writing through Write & Improve with Cambridge, a new automated writing evaluation system that generates automated feedback with three different levels of explicitness. Data from multiple perspectives were collected and examined, including participants' eye movements, their stimulated recalls, and their responses/revisions to automated feedback on their multiple drafts. The results revealed that participants spent significantly more time and expended more cognitive effort in processing indirect than direct feedback. However, a lower percentage of indirect feedback was taken up, and the revisions participants made based on such feedback were less successful. These findings suggest feedback explicitness as a determining factor affecting learners' engagement with automated feedback and point to the need for timely, supplemental teacher or peer scaffolding in addition to automated feedback. The results also suggest that AWE tools need to be constantly updated to improve their feedback accuracy, as error-prone feedback may cause participants to make inaccurate amendments to their writing. In addition, teachers should help learners confirm the accuracy of AWE feedback. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	National Foreign Language Resource Center at University of Hawaii. 1859 East-West Road #106, Honolulu, HI 96822. e-mail: llt@hawaii.edu; Web site: https://www.lltjournal.org/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01