magazinelogo

The Educational Review, USA

ISSN Online: 2575-7946 Downloads: 527079 Total View: 5337835
Frequency: monthly ISSN Print: 2575-7938 CODEN: TERUBB
Email: edu@hillpublisher.com
Article Open Access http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/er.2023.09.024

A Comparison of Automated Corrective Feedback and Traditional Corrective Feedback: A Review Study

Yueqian Liu

Faculty of Education, Languages, Psychology & Music, SEGI University, Selangor, Malaysia.

*Corresponding author: Yueqian Liu

Published: October 30,2023

Abstract

Corrective feedback (CF) is often used to help language learners identify and correct  errors in their spoken or written language. Traditional CF in this paper refers to teacher feedback, peer feedback, and self-feedback. Auto-mated corrective feedback (ACF) indicates the use of technology, specifically artificial intelligence (AI) systems, to provide feedback to learners on their performance or work. This paper compared ACF and traditional CF through a review based on these four aspects: response time of feedback, potential risks, interpersonal interaction, and personalized learning, aiming to assist teachers in comprehending the use of technical tools and enhancing learners' English proficiency. ACF has the benefits of instant response time, minimal emotional damage, and individualized feedback. Whereas traditional CF has the benefits of real-time interpersonal interaction and no concerns about privacy exposure. It is recommended to combine the two modes of feedback so as to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of language learning.

References

El Shazly, R. (2021). Effects of artificial intelligence on English speaking anxiety and speaking performance: A case study. Expert Systems, 38(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.12667.

Fryer, L. K., Ainley, M., Thompson, A., Gibson, A., & Sherlock, Z. (2017). Stimulating and sustaining interest in a language course: An experimental comparison of Chatbot and Human task partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 461-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.045.

Fu, Q.-K., Zou, D., Xie, H., & Cheng, G. (2022). A review of AWE feedback: Types, learning outcomes, and implications. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2033787.

Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70-105.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.700315.

Ha, Q.-A., Chen, J. V., Uy, H. U., & Capistrano, E. P. (2021). Exploring the Privacy Concerns in Using Intelligent Virtual Assistants under Perspectives of Information Sensitivity and Anthropomorphism. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(6), 512-527. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1834728.

Ha, X. V., Murray, J. C., & Riazi, A. M. (2021). High school EFL students’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback: The role of gender, motivation and extraversion. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 235-264.

https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.2.4.

Hamed Mahvelati, E. (2021). Learners’ perceptions and performance under peer versus teacher corrective feedback conditions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 100995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100995.

Heift, T., & Hegelheimer, V. (2017). Computer-Assisted Corrective Feedback and Language Learning. In Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 51-65). Routledge.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition (1st ed). Pergamon.

Quinn, P. G., & Nakata, T. (2017). The Timing of Oral Corrective Feedback. In Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 35-47). Routledge.

Sato, M. (2017). Oral Peer Corrective Feedback Multiple Theoretical Perspectives. In Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 19-34). Routledge.

Shadiev, R., & Feng, Y. (2023). Using automated corrective feedback tools in language learning: A review study. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2153145.

Shang, H.-F. (2022). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 4-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1629601.

Sheen, Y. (2011). Pedagogical Perspectives on Corrective Feedback. In Y. Sheen, Corrective Feedback, Individual Differences and Second Language Learning (Vol. 13, pp. 39-51). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0548-7_3.

Tafazoli, D., & Gómez-Parra, M. E. (2017). Robot-Assisted Language Learning: Artificial Intelligence in Second Language Acquisition. In F. Nassiri-Mofakham (Ed.), Current and Future Developments in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 370-396). Bentham Science Publishers. https://doi.org/10.2174/9781681085029117010015.

How to cite this paper

A Comparison of Automated Corrective Feedback and Traditional Corrective Feedback: A Review Study

How to cite this paper: Yueqian Liu. (2023). A Comparison of Automated Corrective Feedback and Traditional Corrective Feedback: A Review Study. The Educational Review, USA7(9), 1365-1368.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/er.2023.09.024