Author(s)

Binbin Chen ¹, Rui Zhang ¹

Affiliation(s)

¹ School of Computer and Information, Qiannan Normal University for Nationalities, Duyun, Guizhou, 558000, China

Corresponding Author

Binbin Chen

ABSTRACT

Product-oriented pedagogy was born from the deep exploration and practice of psychology in teaching. It has been widely used in writing teaching and achieved remarkable results, forming a process-oriented writing approach. However, the status of EFL teaching in China does not meet the requirements of process-oriented writing approach for writing teaching. Under the basic condition of unbalanced teacher-student ratio and heavy teaching tasks, it also faces the problem of extremely unbalanced distribution of educational materials between urban and rural areas. Computer-assisted writing teaching technology, especially basic EFL teaching, should be a efficient instrument to solve this situation. However, due to the fact that most of the existing computer-assisted writing techniques are proposed and designed by computer professionals, and few pedagogic and linguistic experts participate in them, the existing techniques lack the guidance of relevant theories, resulting in many problems that do not meet the expectations of EFL teaching. This article attempts to propose the basic principles, aspects and effects of the design of computer-aided writing technology, combining the cutting-edge computer technologies, the actual situation of basic EFL writing teaching in China and the requirements of Process-oriented writing approach.

KEYWORDS

Product-Oriented Pedagogy, Process-Oriented Writing Approach, Teaching of Writing, EFL, CALL

CITE THIS PAPER

Binbin Chen, Rui Zhang, Research on Principles of Designing Computer Assisted Writing Feedback Technology in EFL of Basic Education under the Guidance of Process-Oriented Writing Approach. Advances in Educational Technology and Psychology (2022) Vol. 6: 57-62. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23977/aetp.2022.060608.

REFERENCES

[1] ARNDT V 1993. Response to writing: Using feedback to inform the writing process. Teaching composition around the Pacific Rim: Politics and pedagogy: 90-116.
[2] BEACH R, FRIEDRICH T 2006. Response to writing. Handbook of writing research, 1.
[3] CHAUDRON C 1987. Analysis of Products and Instructional Approaches in Writing: Two Articles on the State of the Art: Introduction. TESOL quarterly, 21: 673-675.
[4] CONRAD S M, GOLDSTEIN L M 1999. ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of second language writing, 8: 147-179.
[5] FERRIS D, ROBERTS B 2001. Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of second language writing, 10: 161-184.
[6] FERRIS D R 1995. Student reactions to teacher response in multiple‐draft composition classrooms. TESOL quarterly, 29: 33-53.
[7] FREEDMAN S W 1984. The Evaluation of, and Response to Student Writing: A Review.
[8] HYLAND F 2000. ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language teaching research, 4: 33-54.
[9] KEH C L 1990. Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation.
[10] LEKI I 1990. Second Language Writing: Coaching from the margins: issues in written response.
[11] LEWIS M. Giving feedback in language classes: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre,2002.
[12] LI J, LINK S, HEGELHEIMER V 2015. Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of second language writing, 27: 1-18.
[13] LIU J, EDWARDS J H. Peer response in second language writing classrooms: University of Michigan Press,2018
[14] MCGROARTY M E, ZHU W 1997. Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision. Language Learning, 47: 1-43.
[15] NUNAN D. Second Language Teaching & Learning: ERIC,1999.
[16] ONOZAWA C 2010. A study of the process writing approach. Research Note, 10: 153-163.
[17] PAULUS T M 1999. The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of second language writing, 8: 265-289.
[18] POLIO C 2012. The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of second language writing, 21: 375-389.
[19] SOMMERS N 1982. Responding to student writing. College composition and communication, 33: 148-156.
[20] VILLAMIL O S, GUERRERO M C D 1998. Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied linguistics, 19: 491-514.
[21] ZAMEL V 1982. Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL quarterly, 16: 195-209.
[22] ZAMEL V 1985. Responding to student writing. TESOL quarterly , 19: 79-101.

Sponsors, Associates, and Links

---

• Curriculum and Teaching Methodology
  
  
• Transactions on Comparative Education
  
  
• Applied & Educational Psychology
  
  
• Advances in Vocational and Technical Education
  
  
• Adult and Higher Education