Second Language Observation Report

To correct or not to correct the errors made by second language learners has been a controversial issue in second language acquisition (SLA). While the nativists (Krashen, 1987) believe that language can be acquired without paying attention to it and that therefore the negative evidence (Gass & Varonis, 1994;

James, 1998) arising from error correction is not helpful, cognitive theorists see paying attention to (Schmidt, 2001) and noticing (Doughty, 2001; Long &

Robinson, 1998; Swain, 1998) the features of language as the key to second language learning. Since error correction directs the learner’s attention to aspects of language and forces her to notice its systemic features, in light of this theory, correction appears to be helpful. So far,

Dodigovic

LANGUAGE AWARENESS Vol. 16, No. 2, 2007

99

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:59 09 October 2014

100 Language Awareness errors. It also claims that artificial intelligence can be a very useful instrument of second language error correction and remediation. The study described here revolves around the software package developed by the author to correct typical errors made by learners of English as a second language. More detail regarding the software itself and its development can be found in the CALL Journal

(Dodigovic, 2002), a special issue of Language Awareness (Dodigovic, 2003) and a recent book published by Multilingual Matters (Dodigovic, 2005). All of these publications give extensive cross-disciplinary theoretical background to the software, while anticipating a large scale study of its effectiveness. This paper finally brings about the long awaited effectiveness data and should therefore be regarded as a natural sequel to the three cited sources.

Artificial Intelligence in Second Language Learning

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a term referring to machines which emulate

This study demonstrates the effectiveness of the Intelligent Tutor in terms of learning outcomes (Chapelle, 2001).

Errors and Correction in Second Language Learning

Since the main purpose of the Intelligent Tutor is to diagnose and correct L2 errors, we shall briefly review the stances on error correction in SLA theory.

Error correction is supported in the SLA literature (e.g. Doughty, 2001; Gregg,

2001; Long & Robinson, 1998) in two different ways. The first one insists on its relevance to the communicative context (e.g. Doughty & Williams, 1998; Long

& Robinson, 1998), while the second one stresses the value of consciousness raising (R. Ellis, 1997; James, 1998). The two approaches can be called focuson-form

(e.g. Doughty, 2001; Doughty & Long, 2003) and language awareness

( James, 1998) or consciousness-raising approaches (R. Ellis, 1997), respectively.

The former seeks not to distract the learner from the message and meaning, and therefore offers corrective recasts or asks clarification questions. The latter allows for the metalinguistic aspect to come to the foreground.

Most SLA theorists nowadays agree that noticing is a crucial event in language error correction and learning (Schmidt, 2001). To James (1998), noticing