Advertisement

Is the Simplest Chatbot Effective in English Writing Learning Assistance?

  • Ryo NagataEmail author
  • Tomoya Hashiguchi
  • Driss Sadoun
Conference paper
  • 11 Downloads
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1215)

Abstract

While writing plays a central role in writing learning, non-native learners often find difficulty in writing English, which hinders them from engaging in writing exercises. This paper examines the hypothesis that even the simplest chatbot (such as ELIZA) has a positive effect on assisting learners in writing more. We empirically show such a tendency by comparing words that learners produce by using a standard editor and a chatbot-based writing system. We further look into the writing results, showing that the chatbot-based system has good effects on word usage and self-revision. Finally, we propose a new writing exercise combining the chatbot-based system with the conventional method.

Keywords

Writing learning Learning assistance Chatbot Feedback EFL/ESL 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their useful comments on this paper. This work was partly supported by Konan Premier Project and Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), PRESTO Grant Number JPMJPR1758, Japan

References

  1. 1.
    Bitchener, J., Young, S., Cameron, D.: The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. J. Second Lang. Writ. 14(3), 191–205 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Core, M.G., Moore, J.D., Zinn, C.: The role of initiative in tutorial dialogue. In: Proceedings of 10th Conference on European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 67–74 (2003). DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3115/1067807.1067818
  3. 3.
    Elizabeth Boyer, K., Phillips, R.D. W̃allis, M., Vouk, M.C. L̃ester, J.: Learner characteristics and feedback in tutorial dialogue. In: Proceedings of 12th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, pp. 53–61 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Felice, R.D., Pulman, S.G.: A classifier-based approach to preposition and determiner error correction in L2 English. In: Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 169–176 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Han, N.R., Chodorow, M., Leacock, C.: Detecting errors in English article usage with a maximum entropy classifier trained on a large, diverse corpus. In: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pp. 1625–1628 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Han, N.R., Chodorow, M., Leacock, C.: Detecting errors in English article usage by non-native speakers. Nat. Lang. Eng. 12(2), 115–129 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Junczys-Dowmunt, M., Grundkiewicz, R., Guha, S., Heafield, K.: Approaching neural grammatical error correction as a low-resource machine translation task. In: Proceedings of 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, vol. 1 (Long Papers), pp. 595–606 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N18-1055
  8. 8.
    Kaneko, M., Sakaizawa, Y., Komachi, M.: Grammatical error detection using error- and grammaticality-specific word embeddings. In: Proceedings of 8th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, vol. 1: Long Papers, pp. 40–48 (2017). http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/I17-1005
  9. 9.
    Marineau, J., et al.: Classification of speech acts in tutorial dialog. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Modeling Human Teaching Tactics and Strategies of ITS, pp. 65–71 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nagata, R., Kawai, A., Morihiro, K., Isu, N.: A feedback-augmented method for detecting errors in the writing of learners of English. In: Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 241–248 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nagata, R., Nakatani, K.: Evaluating performance of grammatical error detection to maximize learning effect. In: Proceedings of 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, poster volume, pp. 894–900 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Napoles, C., Callison-Burch, C.: Systematically adapting machine translation for grammatical error correction. In: Proceedings of 12th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, pp. 345–356 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-5039, http://aclweb.org/anthology/W17-5039
  13. 13.
    Rei, M.: Semi-supervised multitask learning for sequence labeling, In: Proceedings of 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 1: Long Papers, pp. 2121–2130 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-1194
  14. 14.
    Rei, M., Yannakoudakis, H.: Compositional sequence labeling models for error detection in learner writing. In: Proceedings of 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 1: Long Papers, pp. 1181–1191 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P16-1112
  15. 15.
    Robb, T., Ross, S., Shortreed, I.: Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Q. 20(1), 83–93 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Selinker, L.: Interlanguage. Int. Rev. Appl. Linguist. Lang. Teach. 10(3), 209–231 (1972)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sheen, Y.: The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Q. 41, 255–283 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weizenbaum, J.: ELIZA – a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Commun. ACM 9(1), 36–45 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Konan UniversityKobeJapan
  2. 2.Japan Science and Technology Agency, PRESTOKawaguchiJapan
  3. 3.University of HyogoKobeJapan
  4. 4.PostLabMarseilleFrance
  5. 5.ERTIM, INALCOParisFrance

Personalised recommendations