Research Article Critique
Lima, F. V., & Phua, J. (2019). Teaching Writing with Language Feedback Technology.
Article Summary
Introduction
Many factors contribute to a good piece of writing. In education, teachers can help students improve their writing skills by giving them feedback, but it takes too much time and effort for teachers to mark all of the students’ writing. Fei and Jean (2019) examined the effectiveness of Ginger, a Linguistic Feedback Tool (LiFT), in students’ compositions. They conducted the research to know whether teachers and students would be willing to use Ginger and whether Ginger could reduce teachers’ marking time. Some prior studies argued against the use of LiFT in marking because of their unreliability, other authors claimed that this topic had drawn much public attention.
Participants
The participants in this study were 436 secondary students between 13 and 15 years old from 14 classes in seven schools.
Measures
The questions from the open-ended survey were used to sort students’ responses into groups. Group interviews were conducted to know how students used Ginger in their writing.
Hypothesis
There were two hypotheses in this study. First, the authors hypothesized that both teachers and students would be willing to adopt the use of a LiFT. Second, they predicted that marking time would be reduced by using Ginger.
The research was divided into two parts. In the first part, the authors investigated what teachers and students felt about Ginger. The dependent variable was the amount of marking time and the independent variable was the design conditions and the markers. In the second part, they tested how much marking time was reduced. The dependent variable was the time teachers spent on marking the tests and the independent variable was the design conditions and the markers.
Procedure
In the first part of the study, 436 students were asked to type their composition in Microsoft Word before checking their writing with Ginger. Then, they had their composition marked by their teachers. After conducting open-ended surveys and interviews with the teachers and students, the authors found that most of them felt satisfied with Ginger. In the second part of the study, students were divided into three groups and wrote two compositions, either by hand, or by using MSWord with the Spelling and Grammar Checker on, or by MSWord with Ginger on. Using two-way ANOVA analysis, the authors concluded that teachers could save time for marking.
Discussion
The results supported both hypotheses that teachers and students would welcome the use of a LiFT and such tool could help save marking time. However, the authors stated that there were some factors which hindered the use of LiFT at school. Firstly, the examination was mainly carried out in handwriting. Secondly, students had to have a good understanding of grammar to make use of the feedback provided by LiFT.
Article evaluation
Importance of Problem Investigated
The authors state that the application of technology in writing lessons is a controversial issue. Some previous studies suggest that students’ writing could be improved by using a LiFT while others doubt the reliability of such programs. By choosing this topic, the authors could give a clear answer to this problem, particularly the aspects of writing students can improve. Also, within the next few years, technology will be more and more integrated in teaching, so this research is essential to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular piece of technology in the classroom. Moreover, this research can lay the foundation for further research into this field.
Review of Literature
Before presenting the hypotheses, the authors give a clear definition of the term “Linguistic Marking Tool”, stating that it is different than tools which mark the style of the students’ writing. This helps readers have a clear understanding of what kind of tool the authors are investigating.
There is a vast amount of review of literature on the use of technology in this article paper. The authors first state that few researches have been conducted on the use of Ginger in classrooms. Then, they cite the result of another research on Grammarly, which is similar to Ginger. After that, they list some studies which prove the effectiveness of LiFT. The authors also showed the criticisms on the integration of technology due to its lack of reliability. Those references help readers to see a general picture of using LiFT in classrooms, as well as the usefulness of the study.
Hypotheses
The authors clearly hypothesized that both students and teachers will be pleased to use LiFT in their writing and LiFT can reduce the time of marking. Both hypotheses are totally relevant to this purpose of this study.
Participants
436 secondary school students participate in this research, which is a sufficient number to generate a reliable result. However, as the participants are from grade seven to nine, and they may only make basic grammar and spelling mistakes, it is quite easy for the Ginger tool to identify the mistakes. In order to fully test the reliability of the tool, more advanced writing done by high school students should be used to examine whether this tool can spot the more complicated mistakes.
Procedure and Design
The authors are successful at explaining all the steps they conducted in both parts of the study. In the first part, they clearly state how they group students, and what questions the students and teachers need to answer in the interview. The questions in the survey are also provided in the article, and all the data collected from the survey and interview are illustrated in tables.
In the second part, the authors clearly present how many participants from part one continue to take part in part two. They also describe all the steps they conduct in detail, which helps readers understand thoroughly the procedure.
The only problem in the procedure is the use of surveys as students and teachers are lazy to write fully what is on their mind. As a result, the answers may be somewhat invalid.
Analysis
The authors are successful at describing their way of analysis in detail. In fact, they clearly stated different feedback from teachers. However, for the feedback from students, they put similar feedback items into themes, some of which overlap each other. For example, the them “Improve my English” seems a broader theme of “Correct my mistakes”, as correcting mistakes is a way to improve English. Moreover, the authors fail to separate the spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes, which are two different kinds of mistakes.
Discussion
In addition to restating the findings, the authors also listed three main reasons why the application of LiFT is not widely accepted in Singapore at the moment, which are the traditional methods of conducting exams, the willingness of teachers and the cost involved in using the tool. This can help the government to find feasible ways to integrate a LiFT into teaching. They made a good job in explaining the reasons in detailed.