پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 31 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 834 |
| تعداد مقالات | 8,015 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 14,851,798 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 9,586,036 |
Exploring the Effects of AI-Assisted Translation on EFL University Students’ Academic Writing Proficiency: A Longitudinal Study | ||
| Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies | ||
| دوره 17، شماره 2، دی 2025، صفحه 121-134 اصل مقاله (203.15 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22111/ijals.2025.49435.2460 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Vahid Reza Mirzaeian* 1؛ Katayoun Oskoui2 | ||
| 1Department of English, Faculty of Literature, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Department of English, Faculty of Literature, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| In spite of numerous studies on the effect of AIAT on foreign language learning, few have examined its impact on university students’ academic writing proficiency over an extended period. This study, therefore, investigated the effect of Google Translate (GT) on the writing proficiency of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) university students. It examined fluency, lexical density, accuracy, and syntactic complexity across four versions of students’ writings: the pretest, writing with the aid of GT, the posttest, and a retention test conducted two to four months after the treatment. The findings indicated that syntactic complexity, accuracy, and fluency improved when students used GT for writing; however, these measures showed a significant decline in the posttest and retention test without GT. This decrease was more pronounced in lexical density and less so in syntactic complexity. Despite this decline, all factors assessed in the retention test still showed improvement compared to the pretest, indicating the positive effect of GT on students’ foreign language writing performance. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| AI-assisted translation؛ google translate؛ academic writing؛ fluent language؛ lexical density؛ correct language use | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Arifin, S. (2017). L2 writing strategies used by EFL graduate students. Journal of ELT Research, 2(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.22236/JER_Vol2Issue2pp115-129
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.
Briggs, N. (2018). Neural machine translation tools in the language learning classroom: Students’ use, perceptions, and analyses. JALT CALL Journal, 14(1), 2–24.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
Chandra, S. O., &Yuyun, I. (2018). The use of Google Translate in EFL essay writing. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 21(2), 228–238.
Chang, P., Chen, P-J., & Lai, L-L. (2022). Recursive editing with Google Translate: The impact on writing and error correction. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2147192
Chen, M.-H., Huang, S.-T., Chang, J. S., & Liou, H.-C. (2015). Developing a corpus-based paraphrase tool to improve EFL learners’ writing skills. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.783873
Chon, Y. V., Shin, D., & Kim, G. E. (2021). Comparing L2 learners’ writing against parallel machine translated texts: Raters’ assessment, linguistic complexity, and errors. System, 96, 1–12. https://doi.10.1016/j.system.2020.102408
Chung, E., & Ahn, S. (2022) The effect of using machine translation on linguistic features in L2 writing across proficiency levels and text genres. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2239–2264 https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1871029
Ducar, C., & Schocket, D. H. (2018). Machine translation and the L2 classroom: Pedagogical solutions for making peace with Google Translate. Foreign Language Annals, 51(4), 779–795. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12366
ETS. (2021). Writing scoring guide. Retrieved from https://www.ETS.org/pdfs/toefl/toefl-ibt-writingrubrics-enhanced.pdf
Ferris, D. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. The University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. F., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2014). Teaching L2 composition: Purpose, process, and practice (3rd Ed.). Routledge.
Fredholm, K. (2015). Online translation use in Spanish as a foreign language essay writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. RevistaNebrija de LingüísticaAplicada a la Enseñanza de las Lenguas, 9, 1–18.
Fredholm, K. (2019). Effects of Google translate on lexical diversity: Vocabulary development among learners of Spanish as a foreign language. RevistaNebrija de LingüísticaAplicada a la Enseñanza de las Lenguas, 13, 98–117. http://doi.org/10.26378/rnlael1326300
Fredholm, K. (2021). Google Translate search strategies among learners of Spanish L3: A complex lexico-morpho-syntactic weave of trial-and-error. Estudios de LingüísticaAplicada, 39(72), 9–48. http://doi:10.26378/rnlael918248
Garcia, I., & Peña, M. (2011). Machine translation-assisted language learning: Writing for beginners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 471–487.
Graesser, A., McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., & Gai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(2), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564
Groves, M. & Mundt, K. (2015). Friend or foe? Google Translate in language for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.09.001
Jolley, J. R., & Maimone, L. (2015). Free online machine translation: Use and perceptions by Spanish students and instructors. In A. Moeller (Ed.), Learn languages, explore cultures, transform lives (pp. 181–200). Robert M. Terry.
Kol, S., Schcolnik, M., & Spector-Cohen, E. (2018). Google Translate in academic writing courses? The EuroCALL Review, 26(2), 50–57. http://doi:10.4995/eurocall.2018.10140
Koltovskaia, S. (2022). Postsecondary L2 writing teachers’ use and perceptions of Grammarly as a complement to their feedback. ReCALL, 35(3), 1–15.
Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 524–536. http://doi:10.1017/S0261444819000247
Lee, S.-M. (2020). The impact of using machine translation on EFL students’ writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1553186
Lee, S-M. (2022a). Different effects of machine translation on L2 revisions across students’ L2 writing proficiency levels. Language Learning & Technology, 26(1), 1–21.
Lee, S-M. (2022b). L2 learners' strategies for using machine translation as a personalized writing assisting tool. In J. Colpaert & G. Stockwell (Eds.), Personalization, contextualization, and socialization (pp. 184–206). Castledown Publishers.
Lee, S-M., & Briggs, N. (2021). Effects of using machine translation to mediate the revision process of Korean university students’ academic writing. ReCALL, 33(1), 18–33.
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated Evaluation of Text and Discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003
Mirzaeian, V. (2020). Machine Translation Output Assessment and its Impact on Reading Comprehension. Technology of Education Journal, 14(2), 697–710.
Mirzaeian V. (2022). Scientific study of the application of Machine Translation in language teaching and meta-analysis of its effect. Technology of Education Journal, 16(2), 384-400. https://doi.org/10.22061/tej.2022.8267.2642
Mirzaeian, V. (2024). The Effect of Artificial Intelligence Generated Translation versus Human Translation on Reading Comprehension of the Speakers of Less Commonly Taught Languages. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 16(1), 63-74.
Mirzaeian V. and Maghdoudi, M. (2024). Benchmarking Machine Translation Efficacy for Teaching EAP Reading Comprehension Skills. Technology of Education Journal, 18(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.22061/tej.2023.9892.2913
Mirzaeian V. and Oskoui, K. (2022). Investigating Iranian EFL Student Teachers’ Attitude toward the Implementation of Machine Translation as an ICALL Tool. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 14(30), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.22034/elt.2022.52038.2496
Mirzaeian V. and Oskoui, K. (2023) GTALL: A GNMT model for the Future of Foreign Language Education. Issues in Language Teaching, 11(2), 129-159.
Mirzaeian V., & Oskoui, K. (2023) Google Translate in Foreign Language Learning: A Systematic Review. Applied Research on English Language, 12(2), 51-84.
Niño, A. (2004). Recycling MT: A Course on Foreign Language Writing via MT post. In Proceedings of 7th Annual CLUK Research Colloquium (pp. 179–187). https://mt-archive.net/CLUK-2004-Nino.pdf
Niño, A. (2008). Evaluating the use of machine translation post-editing in the foreign language class. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 29–49.
Niño, A. (2009). Machine translation in foreign language learning: Language learners’ and tutors’ perceptions of its advantages and disadvantages. ReCALL, 21(2), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344009000172
Niño, A. (2020). Exploring the use of online machine translation for independent language learning. Research in Learning Technology, 28, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v28.2402
O’Neill, E. M. (2016). Measuring the impact of online translation on FL writing scores. The IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 46(2), 1–39.
O’Neill, E. M. (2019). Training students to use online translators and dictionaries: The impact on second language writing scores. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 8(2), 47–65. http://doi:10.5861/ijrsll.2019.4002
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67–100.
Shadiev, R., Sun, A., & Huang, Y.-M. (2019). A study of the facilitation of cross-cultural understanding and intercultural sensitivity using speech-enabled language translation technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1415–1433. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12648
Shin, D., & Chon, Y. V. (2023). Second language learners’ post-editing strategies for machine translation errors. Language Learning & Technology, 27(1), 1–25. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73523
Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12317
Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 72, 118–32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43104426
Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–79. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44487616
Stapleton, P., & Kin, B. (2019). Assessing the accuracy and teachers’ impressions of Google Translate: A study of primary L2 writers in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 56, 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.07.001
Tang, C., & Liu, Y. (2018). Effects of indirect coded corrective feedback with and without short affective teacher comments on L2 writing performance, learner uptake, and motivation. Assessing Writing, 35, 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.12.002
Tourmen, C., & Hoffmann, D. (2022). A "hands-on” approach to raise awareness of technologies: A pilot class and its lessons. L2 Journal, 14(1), 237–257.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
Tsai, S.-C. (2019). Using Google Translate in EFL drafts: A preliminary investigation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(5–6), 510–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1527361
Tsai, S.-C. (2022). Chinese students’ perceptions of using Google Translate as a translingual CALL tool in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(5–6), 1250–1272. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1799412
Valijärvi, R.-L., & Tarsoly, E. (2019). Language students as critical users of Google Translate: Pitfalls and possibilities. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 12(1), 61–74.
White, K. D., & Heidrich, E. (2013). Our policies, their text: German language students’ strategies with and beliefs about web-based machine translation. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 46(2), 230–250.
Yang, Y., Wei, X., Li, P., & Zhai, X. (2023). Assessing the effectiveness of machine translation in the Chinese EFL writing context: A replication of Lee (2020). ReCALL. 35(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344023000022
Zhang, L., & Cheng, X. (2021). Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 52, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101043 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,285 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 184 |
||