Submitted to 2012 ICALT
Technology-enhanced writing accuracy for learners of English as a foreign language:
Acquisition-oriented design and evaluation
Yu-Chuan Joni Chao
Abstract
Second language (L2) learning is generally thought to be enhanced a great deal by technology for its
functions that provide practice, interaction, and feedback in learning. Yet technology-enhanced
language learning (TELL) may not necessarily achieve the second language acquisition (SLA), i.e., to
produce the target language correctly with ease of relative automatization. As error production in L2
writing prevails, the effectiveness of grammar teaching and teachers’ correction on writing accuracy
is challenged. The study aims to address the issue of writing accuracy by designing and evaluating an
acquisition-oriented computer program as error treatment for learners of English as a foreign
language (EFL) to improve their writing accuracy. Theoretical principles of grammatical attention,
input processing and noticing underpin the design of learning tasks. Technical design focuses on the
user interface to achieve leaning motivation and the ultimate learning goal of using appropriate
language knowledge while writing. Program evaluation is administered to three classes of the
Sophomore English Composition course in a university in Taiwan: a deliberate-practicing group (n
= 20) as the course requirement, a self-regulated group (n = 20) by their volition, and a comparison
group (n = 20) to collect learning data for the program instead of learning from the program. All the
participants take pre- and post-tests that assess the linguistic abilities in three formats of output
performance: sentence correcting, text proofreading and picture-story writing. Implications from the
effectiveness of technology-enhance writing accuracy in EFL will shed light on theories of
learning-acquisition so as to design better programs of technology-enhanced writing accuracy
(TEWA).
Keywords
English as a foreign language (EFL); input processing; second language (L2); second language
acquisition (SLA); technology-enhanced language learning (TELL); writing accuracy
Introduction
Second language (L2) learning is generally thought to be enhanced a great deal by computer
technology for its functions that provide practice, interaction, and feedback in learning. Web-based
writing programs such as MY Access!® and Criterion® have been developed to provide instructors
and students with writing instruction and assessment of English-language essays. Linguistic
technologies assist to motivate students, especially L2 learners, to write more frequently by
providing them with immediate feedback. However, error production in L2 writing still prevails. The
effectiveness of grammar explanation and error correction has been challenged, either through
formal instruction or computer-assisted writing programs. Learning to use the language comprises a
conscious process which results in conscious knowledge about linguistic rules. Language acquisition
differs language learning. Technology-enhanced language learning (TELL) may not necessarily
achieve the second language acquisition (SLA), i.e., to produce the target language correctly with
ease of relative automatization (DeKeyser, 2001; Kellogg, 2008). Structures learned through error
correction cannot become part of the internal grammar and conscious learning is available to the L2
performer only as a monitor (Krashen, 1981, 1982). The study aims to address the issue of writing
accuracy by designing and evaluating a computer program for technology-enhanced writing
accuracy as error treatment for learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) to improve long-term
error reduction.
A cognitive framework of SLA
According to the fundamental claim of Krashen’ Monitor theory (Krashen, 1981, 1982), there
are conditions of monitor use. The first condition to successfully monitor for the L2 performer is that
he or she must have time to apply the learned knowledge. From a cognitive process theory of
writing, the Flower and Hayes’ model (1981) also depicts a monitor that activates and coordinates
among the various composing process. As shown in Figure 1, the writer’s executive attention is
allocated to the basic processes of planning, translating and reviewing. During the situation of
lacking time, difficulties in using L2 may occur because of the excess demands on working memory.
Retrieving grammatical knowledge for L2 writers while composing requires relative automatization
(DeKeyser, 2001; Kellogg, 2008). The implication of either the monitor in the composing model or
the condition of Krashen’s monitor use is that L2 writers need to develop their grammatical
knowledge in the long-term memory so as to assess immediately when needed.
Figure 1. The cognitive process model of composing process (Flower & Hayes, 1981)
The second condition of monitor use is writers’ attention to the written language, namely the
language input. Attention to language input is important for language learning. L2 writers need to
develop self monitoring skills to more of an automatic level in order to develop the ability to make
appropriate corrections. However, according to Van Patten’s principles of Input Processing (IP)
(Van Patten, 1996, 2002a, 2002b), it is the lexical item that L2 learners attend to for the meaning and
not the grammatical form. Figure 2 shows that, when communicating/expressing in writing, L2
writers may focus on processing more meaningful morphology (XYZ) before less meaningful
morphology, namely, the linguistic rules and forms (abc). For L2 writers, the cognitive constraint in
working memory makes it difficult to avoid (and later correct) certain grammatical errors, such as
subject–verb agreement, because such structures become more difficult to notice as more
meaningful semantic words intervene between syntactic linguistic forms. The implication of IP
theory is that writers require executive attention to the written language and effortlessly notice
grammar-specific knowledge in long-term memory.
Figure 2. The flow of input processing (Van Patten, 1996)
To summarize the cognitive conditions for L2 learners to achieve language acquisition, the
study aims to design a technology-enhanced writing accuracy (TEWA) program and to and evaluate
its effectiveness in order to answer the research questions: (1) to what extent the program enhances
learners’ noticing to particular aspects of language/linguistic forms and (2) to what extent learners’
spontaneous noticing is raised so as to reduce making errors in the process of writing.
The SLA-oriented design
Based on the theoretical framework of SLA (Ellis, 1994) as shown in Figure 3, the study aims
to design a program of technology-enhanced writing accuracy (TEWA) that provides opportunities
from developing explicit knowledge (rules of grammatical knowledge, viz. declarative knowledge)
into implicit knowledge (using the grammar to write accurately, viz. procedural knowledge).
Converting declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge (Anderson, 1983) or into retrieval
from long-term memory as opposed to computation in working memory (Logan, 1988), practice is
the means for language use to become more automatic under either of these models (Kellogg,
2008).
Figure 3. A framework for investigating L2 acquisition (Ellis, 1994, p. 349)
Theoretical principles of grammatical attention
In terms of responding to the eminent errors found in L2 writing, different errors represent
different domains of linguistic knowledge that are developed at different stages of the SLA
progression (Ferris, 2002): “treatable errors” as those “related to a linguistic structure that occurs in
a rule-governed way” differs from those idiosyncratic “ untreatable errors” (p. 23). As the
preliminary aim of this empirical research is to investigate whether “treatable errors” can be
self-reduced or self-corrected by the EFL student-writers who practice the research-designed TEWA
program, the study chooses the following four types of errors that can be categorized as a problem
of consistency:
A. Verb-tenses consistency
B. Subject-Verb agreement
C. Pronoun consistency
D. Consistency in a series of forms
Furthermore, learners can determine the grammar areas to learn. This self-directed learning strategy
is to help them to make their grammatical attention for input-processing. Meanwhile, the level of
difficulty is also self-determined:
Level 1: Choose one of the grammar points (4 options).
Level 2: Choose two of the grammar points (6 options)
Level 3: Choose three of the grammar points (4 options)
Level 2: Choose all the four grammar points (1 option)
The volitional process of choosing both the grammar point and the level is to motivate the executive
control of attention by the learner. Practice tasks are within reach of the individual's current level of
ability or the advance level of “i+1” (i.e., one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic
competence) (Krashen, 1981).
The learning task: Input processing and noticing
Learners need to be taught how to process input in order to better acquire the underlying grammar.
In the TEWA program, the rationale of the learning task is learners’ active input-processing of a
focused linguistic form. By adapting Van Patten’s processing instruction (Van Patten, 2002a), a pair
of sentence to process is the format of the learning task that entails pushing learners to actively
notice the grammar in the input. All learners need to do is to choose the correct sentence, either A or
B:
Example of a pair of sentences to process
A. I like swimming better than to dive.
B. I like swimming better than diving.
As the processing task demands quick responses, learners’ detection is likely to be spurred to focus on
noticing the linguistic differences in the paired sentences, rather than to translate the meaning and
comprehend the message. Contrasts between the paired sentences provide scaffolding to learners to
locate corrections and errors. Such noticing practices differ from traditional grammar exercises,
either in the paper-based or the computerized format, that use multiple choices or sentence correction
to assess rules of grammatical knowledge.
At each level, learners need to achieve a correction rate more than 90% (makes 23 correct
choices within 25 pairs) so as to pass the level. Thus, learners will be treated to have the procedural
knowledge.
The design of technology-enhanced language acquisition
Three major implications for learning through technology are designed in the TEWA program:
(1) immediate feedback that provides knowledge of results for reflection for intake development, (2)
the training of monitor use that helps to develop automatization from declarative to procedural
knowledge, and (3) motivation that attracts to undertake the task to improve performance.
The feedback design
In-time explanation as feedback is provided not only to reinforce the grammatical knowledge
but also for learners to relax and reflect on what they have noticed. Thus, learners immediately
know whether they choose the right answer or not:
Example of the pop-up explanation
The pop-up will stay at least 5 seconds for learners to read. After the default period, learners can
choose to continue or wait for the maximum 20 seconds to go to the next pair. The mandatory
learning period of the pop-up grammatical explanation differs from the traditional procedure that
postpones the explanation as a lesson at the end of the exercise. The blended feedback for observing
is essential to the internalization of linguistic rules (Kellogg, 2008). Feedback is another way to push
the explicit knowledge into the implicit knowledge
The training of monitor use
The TELA design aims to provide practices for learners to retrieve their learned grammatical
knowledge with high speed so as to automatically process the language with little interference from
other cognitive task and have low error rate. Each pair in the learning task at each level has to be
processed within the program-set seconds so that learners’ working memory is trained to perform as
if they were in real-time writing process to recall the linguistic knowledge and to detect errors while
reviewing/editing.
Learners’ scores will be calculated by their efficiency of correction rate, the faster response time the
higher score.
The motivational design
The learning task to be processed is simple yet engaging. It is simple to notice the contrasts
between the paired sentences and choose the correct one. The chance to get the right answer is 50%.
However, three wrong choices out of 25 will terminate the practice as “Game Over”. One learning
task (one practice at a level) may attract frequent practices because it requires only a short span of
playing. Meanwhile, the learning task is as engaging as a game-like challenge. Learners need to
notice the differences within the default processing time and choose the correct sentence from the
pair. If they do not respond in time, or if they choose the wrong sentence, a bomb will explode after
the pop-up feedback. When reading the feedback, they simultaneously expect to get their result,
either the next pair or the explosion. If learners do not get what he expects, they may be stimulated
and become aware of the inappropriate linguistic knowledge they have recalled.
Evaluation and Conclusion
In this study, program evaluation is administered to three classes of the Sophomore English
Composition course in a university in Taiwan: a deliberate-practicing group (n = 20) to do the
program for one level per month as the course requirement for one semester, a self-regulated group
(n = 20) to use the program on their to improve their writing accuracy, and a comparison group (n =
20) to collect learning data for the program instead of learning from the program. All the
participants take pre- and post-tests that assess the linguistic abilities in three formats of output
performance: sentence correcting, text proofreading and picture-story writing. Data from the three
types of pre- and post-tests will be analyzed in terms of errors that determine the stage of learners’
language (Corder, 1973) progression:


The beginning stage –random errors,
The developing stage (Coder’s 2nd and 3rd stages of learner growing in consistency in

linguistic production),
The final stage –stabilization stage.
Results of the cross-referenced data analyses will be described and explained in terms of the
pedagogical purpose that aims to use the TEWA program to help EFL learners to become (1) more
aware of the linguistic forms and (2) more efficient and effective with processing the input of
English and with self-correcting/editing. The implications will shed light on the acquisition-oriented
principles and technology-enhanced designs.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization In A. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second
Language Instruction (pp. 125-151). New York: Cambridg Uinversity Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: U of
Michigan Press.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and
Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of
Writing Research, 1(1), 1-26.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95,
492-527.
Van Patten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Van Patten, B. (2002a). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755-803.
Van Patten, B. (2002b). Processing the content of input-processing and processing instruction
research: A response to DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, and Harrington. Language Learning,
52(4), 825-831.