“I Am Really Satisfied with the Additional Comments from the Teacher”:  Insights from Thai Undergraduate Students on Adopting Automated Feedback in Paragraph Writing

Nattapat-orn Chuleethongrerk; Jirada  Wudthayagorn

ผู้แต่ง

Nattapat-orn Chuleethongrerk The English as an International Language Program (EIL), Graduate School, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
Jirada Wudthayagorn Chulalongkorn University Language Institute (CULI), Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5992-1996

คำสำคัญ:

automated feedback, automated writing feedback, integrated written feedback, process-based writing

บทคัดย่อ

This study aimed to investigate Thai undergraduate students’ perceptions of automated feedback in a process-based EFL writing classroom. Specifically, it explored and compared their perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use regarding two integrated feedback types: Integrated Automated-Only (IAO) and Integrated Automated-Plus-Teacher (IAPT) feedback. Twenty-nine Thai undergraduate students were randomly assigned to either the IAO (n=13) or IAPT (n=16) group. Grounded in a process-based writing approach, both groups initially received teacher-written feedback on content and organization for their first revision. For subsequent drafts that focused on language revision, the IAO group received automated feedback from an Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) system only, whereas the IAPT group received the automated feedback report that was supplemented with in-focus grammatical explanations from the writing teacher. Each group completed four writing tasks, revising three drafts per task based on their designated feedback type. Following the tasks, a five-point Likert scale questionnaire was given and semi-structured interviews were conducted to examine the students’ perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Findings indicated that the IAPT group reported significantly greater perceived usefulness with overall feedback than the IAO group. Specifically, when the teacher supplemented automated feedback with additional explanations, students perceived it as more useful than automated feedback alone, demonstrating that they value teacher involvement despite the availability of automated systems. These findings underscore the importance of maintaining the teacher's role when adopting automated feedback and highlight practical approaches for incorporating it to enhance writing instruction in Thai higher education.

ประวัติผู้แต่ง

Nattapat-orn Chuleethongrerk, The English as an International Language Program (EIL), Graduate School, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

Nattapat-orn Chuleethongrerk holds a PhD from the English as an International Language (EIL) program at the Graduate School, Chulalongkorn University. With diverse experience in teaching English courses across academic settings, her professional background focuses on language instruction and curriculum development.

Jirada Wudthayagorn, Chulalongkorn University Language Institute (CULI), Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

Jirada Wudthayagorn is an Associate Professor in English Language Teaching at Chulalongkorn University. Her research interests include Language assessment, language policy, and quantitative research. She has published widely in national and international journals and has supervised numerous graduate research projects.

เอกสารอ้างอิง

Ajibade, P. (2018). Technology acceptance model limitations and criticisms: Exploring the practical applications and use in technology-related studies, mixed-method, and qualitative researches. Library Philosophy and Practice, 9. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5294&context=libphilprac

Alfalagg, A. R. (2020). Impact of teacher-student writing conferences on frequency and accuracy of using cohesive devices in EFL students’ writing. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 5(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00104-z

Almusharraf, N., & Alotaibi, H. (2022). An error-analysis study from an EFL writing context: Human and automated essay scoring approaches. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28(1), 1015–1031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-022-09592-z

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8

Bailey, D., & Lee, A. R. (2020). An exploratory study of Grammarly in the language learning context: An analysis of test-based, textbook-based and Facebook corpora. TESOL International Journal, 15(2), 4–27. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1268470

Barrot, J. S. (2022). Integrating technology into ESL/EFL writing through Grammarly. RELC Journal, 53(3), 764–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220966632

Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis. ETS Research Report Series. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2011.tb02241.x

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400

Bowen, P. W., Rose, R., & Pilkington, A. (2017). Mixed methods–Theory and practice. Sequential, explanatory approach. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods, 5(2), 10–27.

Chen, C. E., & Cheng, W. E. (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language Learning and Technology, 12(2), 94–112. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/44145

Clare, L., Valdés, R., & Patthey-Chavez, G. G. (2000). Learning to write in urban elementary and middle schools: An investigation of teachers' written Feedback on student compositions (CSE Technical Report No. 526). Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Dokchandra, D. (2018). The effects of process writing approach on performance of an overcrowded EFL writing class at a university in Thailand. KnE Social Sciences, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i4.1931

Edmonds, W. A., & Kennedy, T. D. (2017). Explanatory-sequential approach. In An applied guide to research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed., pp. 196–200). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802779

Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing Revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400–414. https://doi.org/10.2307/356602

Feng, H. H., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2022). Genre-based AWE system for engineering graduate writing: Development and evaluation. Language Learning & Technology, 26(2), 58–77. https://doi.org/10125/73479

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 11.0 update (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Ghufron, M. A., & Rosyida, F. (2018). The role of Grammarly in assessing English as a foreign language (EFL) writing. Lingua Cultura, 12(4), 395–403. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v12i4.4582

Goldstein, L. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variables. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 185–205). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.012

Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.488703

Han, J. H., & Sa, H. J. (2022). Acceptance of and satisfaction with online educational classes through the technology acceptance model (TAM): The COVID-19 situation in Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, 23, 403–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-021-09716-7

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.3102/003465430298487

Hockly, N. (2018). Automated writing evaluation. ELT Journal, 73(1), 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy044

Huawei, S., & Aryadoust, V. (2023). A systematic review of automated writing evaluation systems. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 771–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11200-7

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006a). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006b). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399

Jeanjaroonsri, R. (2023). Thai EFL learners’ use and perceptions of mobile technologies for writing. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 16(1), 169–193. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/263438

Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294

Koltovskaia, S. (2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44, 100450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450

Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781

Li, S. (2009). The differential effects of implicit and explicit feedback on second language (L2) learners at different proficiency levels. Applied Language Learning, 19(1), 53–79.

Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, 45, 100469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100469

McGarrell, H., & Verbeem, J. (2007). Motivating revision of drafts through formative feedback. ELT Journal, 61(3), 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm030

Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002

Nordin, S., & Mohammad, N. (2006). The best of two approaches: Process /genre - based approach to teaching writing. The English teacher, 35(1), 75–85.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

Pearson, W. S. (2022). A typology of the characteristics of teachers’ written feedback comments on second language writing. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2024937. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.2024937

Pongsukvajchakul, P. (2023). Analysis of Thai EFL university students’ needs in learning English paragraph writing. Journal of Management Sciences Kasetsart University, 2(2), 44–59. https://kuojs.lib.ku.ac.th/index.php/jmsku/article/view/5681

Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830280103

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1136407

Ranalli, J., & Yamashita, T. (2022). Automated written corrective feedback: Error-correction performance and timing of delivery. Language, Learning and Technology, 26(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/73465

Sahu, S., Vishwakarma, Y. K., Kori, J., & Thakur, J. S. (2020). Evaluating performance of different grammar checking tools. International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering 9(2), 2227–2233. https://doi.org/10.30534/ijatcse/2020/201922020

Silva, P. (2015). Davis' technology acceptance model (TAM)(1989). In M. N. Al-Suqri & A. S. Al-Aufi (Eds.), Information seeking behavior and technology adoption: Theories and trends (pp. 205–219). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8156-9.ch013

Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007

Thi, N. K., & Nikolov, M. (2021). How teacher and Grammarly feedback complement one another in Myanmar EFL students’ writing. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31(6), 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00625-2

Thirakunkovit, S., & Chamcharatsri, B. (2019). A meta-analysis of effectiveness of teacher and peer feedback: Implications for writing instructions and research. Asian EFL Journal, 21(1), 140–170.

Wichanpricha, T. (2020). Roles of feedback to English writing improvement: Thai EFL novice writers in higher education. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 10(6), 133. https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2020-0115

Yu, S. (2021). Feedback-giving practice for L2 writing teachers: Friend or foe? Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100798

Zhai, N., & Ma, X. (2022). Automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback: A systematic investigation of college students’ acceptance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2817–2842. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1897019