El Ebyary, K. (2022). Error Flagging Tools and Online Revision Behaviour: Evidence from Native and Non-native Speakers. CDELT Occasional Papers in the Development of English Education, 78(1), 393-421. doi: 10.21608/opde.2022.255403
Khaled El Ebyary. "Error Flagging Tools and Online Revision Behaviour: Evidence from Native and Non-native Speakers". CDELT Occasional Papers in the Development of English Education, 78, 1, 2022, 393-421. doi: 10.21608/opde.2022.255403
El Ebyary, K. (2022). 'Error Flagging Tools and Online Revision Behaviour: Evidence from Native and Non-native Speakers', CDELT Occasional Papers in the Development of English Education, 78(1), pp. 393-421. doi: 10.21608/opde.2022.255403
El Ebyary, K. Error Flagging Tools and Online Revision Behaviour: Evidence from Native and Non-native Speakers. CDELT Occasional Papers in the Development of English Education, 2022; 78(1): 393-421. doi: 10.21608/opde.2022.255403
Error Flagging Tools and Online Revision Behaviour: Evidence from Native and Non-native Speakers
The assumption that L2 writing is a daunting task for L2 learners and that native-speakers are privileged in the complex act of writing has often been present in second language research. The now ubiquitous use of advanced Web 2.0 tools in writing and the emergence of automated error flagging applications with affordances far beyond Word Processing requires some attention from both L2 researchers and L2 tutors, especially when both native (skilled) writers and non-native (less skilled) writers have, reportedly, started to use various commercial and freemium technological tools that claim to provide automated corrective feedback. In fact, little is known about tracking writers’ revision behaviour when error flagging is in place, whether such behaviour would vary between native and non-native writers and how L2 writing instruction can benefit from such evidence. Using a pre-activity questionnaire, an IELTS writing task 2 and a screen capture software, the study compared the revision behaviours of native and non-native speakers of English when an error flagging application (i.e., Grammarly) was used. Major results revealed that native speakers had overall more flagged errors than non-native speakers did, but the latter group had more grammar errors flagged. However, the two groups followed a similar pattern in reacting to the flagged errors. Both native and non-native writers accepted suggestions from Grammarly. The study also suggests that evidence is needed with regard to teachers’ roles in and learners’ uptake from error flagging applications.
View on SCiNiTO
Top