Integrating Machine Translation Into EFL Writing Instruction: Process, Product and Perception
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1301.15Keywords:
EFL writing instruction, machine translation, writing processes, written products, students’ perceptionsAbstract
Although there is a great demand for machine translation (MT) among language learners, its potentials as a computer-assisted language learning aid remain under-explored. Against this backdrop, this study adopted a mixed research method and conducted a semester-long empirical investigation into how EFL learners in mainland China used MT to assist their writing, whether MT helped improve their writing competence and how they perceived MT in EFL writing instruction. The major findings comprise: 1) By using MT students made more lexical and grammatical changes in essay revision; 2) MT helped improve the learners’ overall writing competence, and particularly had a greater effect on writing accuracy and lexical complexity than on other dimensions; 3) Students generally held a positive attitude towards incorporating MT into EFL writing instruction.
References
Alhaisoni, E. & Alhasysony, M. (2017). An investigation of Saudi EFL University students’ attitudes towards the use of Google translate. International Journal of English Language Education, 5(1), 72–82.
Amaral, L. A. & Meurers, D. (2011). On using intelligent computer-assisted language learning in real-life foreign language teaching and learning. ReCALL, 23(1), 4–24.
Bahri, H. & Mahadi, T. (2016). Google Translate as a supplementary tool for learning Malay: A case study at Universiti Sains Malaysia. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(3), 161–167.
Bai, L. F., Ye, S. F. (2018). The dynamic development of English-L2 writing competence. Modern Foreign Languages, 41(3), 354–366.
Baraniello, V., Degano, C., Laura, L., et al. (2016). A wiki-based approach to computer-assisted translation for collaborative language learning (pp.369–379). In Li, Y., Chang, M., Kravcik, M., et al. (eds). State-of-the-Art and Future Directions of Smart Learning. Singapore: Springer.
Bernardini, S. (2016). Discovery learning in the language-for-translation classroom: corpora as learning aids. Cadernos de Tradução, 36(spe), 14–35.
Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of linguistic generalisations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 357–386.
Chéragui, M. A. (2012). Theoretical overview of machine translation. Proceedings ICWIT, 160–169. Retrieved February 25, 2021, from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-867/Paper17.pdf
Correa, M. (2014). Leaving the “peer” out of peer-editing: Online translators as a pedagogical tool in the Spanish as a second language classroom. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 7(1), 1–20.
Ferris, D.R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–339.
Garcia, I. & Pena, M. (2011). Machine translation-assisted language learning: writing for beginners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 471–487.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2015). Contributing, creating, curating: Digital literacies for language learners. Language Learning & Technology, 19(3), 8–20.
Groves, M. & Mundt, K. (2015). Friend or foe? Google translate in language for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 37(1), 112–121.
Jiang, J. L. (2016). The application of Coh-Metrix in foreign language teaching and research. Foreign Languages in China, 13(5), 58–65.
Kliffer, M. (2005). An experiment in MT post-editing by a class of intermediate/advanced French majors (pp.160–165). In Proceedings of the 10th EAMT Conference: Practical applications of machine translation. Retrieved May 15, 2008, from https://aclanthology.org/2005.eamt-1.22/
Lee, S. M. (2014). Grammatical Error Patterns in EFL Students’ Writing across Different Language Proficiency Levels. [Foreign language education], 21, 17–36.
Lee, S. M. (2020). The impact of using machine translation on EFL students’ writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 157–175.
Lu, X. F. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190–208..
Lu, X. F. & Xu, Q. (2016). L2 syntactic complexity analyzer and its applications in L2 writing research. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 48(3), 409–420+479–480.
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118–141.
Niño, A. (2009). Machine translation in foreign language learning: Language learners’ and tutors’ perceptions of its advantages and disadvantages. ReCALL, 21(2), 241–258.
O’Brien, S., Michel, S. & Marie-Josee, G. (2018). Machine translation and self-post-editing for academic writing support: Quality explorations (pp.237–262). In Moorkens, J., Castilho, S., Gaspari, F., et al. (eds). Translation quality assessment, machine translation: technologies and applications. Cham: Springer.
O’Neill, E. (2012). The Effect of Online Translators on L2 Writing in French. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Paul, M. (2005). Lexical frequency profiles: A Monte Carlo analysis. Applied linguistics, 26(1), 32–47.
Rahimi, M. (2009). The role of teacher’s corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy over time: is learner’s mother tongue relevant? Reading & Writing, 22(2), 219–243.
Wong, T. & Lee, J. (2016). Corpus-based learning of Cantonese for Mandarin speakers. ReCALL, 28(2), 187–206.
