An Online Writing Platform for Second Language Learners1
(Graduate Institute of Western Languages and Literature
Tamsui, Taipei Hsien, Taiwan
(Computer and Networks (CAN) Laboratory
Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering
Tamsui, Taipei Hsien, Taiwan
(Computer and Networks (CAN) Laboratory
Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering
Tamsui, Taipei Hsien, Taiwan
(Graduate Institute of Western Languages and Literature
Tamsui, Taipei Hsien. Taiwan
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to describe one module
in a highly integrated language learning environment. The module described
is an asynchronous interactive online environment for EFL writing which
integrates the potential of computers, Internet, and linguistic analysis
to address the highly specific needs of second language composition classes.The
system accommodates learners, teachers, and researchers. A crucial consequence
of the interactive nature of this system is that users actually create
information through their use, and this information enables the system
to improve with use. In addition to the tools provided for teachers to
mark essays and automatically track the feedback they have given each learner,
the system supports the automated capture of a learner corpus of written
English in the process. The essays written by users and the comments given
by teachers are archived in a searchable online database. Learners can
retrieve this information to examine their own recurring problems in the
target language. Teachers can do the same in order to discover these problem
areas for individual learners and for a class as a whole. The modular system
provides interfaces with functions to facilitate an array of user tasks
such as teachers' correction of
This is an extended version of a paper presented at the
ICCE/ICCAI 2000 conference in Taipei, Taiwan. The paper obtained an Outstanding
Paper Award and is published with the permission of ICCE/ICCAI.
essays and learners' writing and revision processes. Error analysis
of learner essays has led to content creation for automated online help.
One sort of help feature can detect certain errors automatically and offer
appropriate help pages. Another type of help feature can track the number
of times a teacher has marked the same error type in one learner's writing
and, when this number reaches a threshold, automatically offer help on
this error to this learner.
Keywords: EFL writing, CALL, corpus linguistics, web-based learning
The purpose of this paper is to describe one module in a highly integrated
language learning environment called IWiLL (Intelligent Web-based Interactive
Language Learning: http://iwillnow.org).
The module within IWiLL which we focus on in this paper is a novel web-based
writing environment designed for EFL composition classes.
The design of the IWiLL writing environment is intended to meet certain
criteria. It supports interactivity between teacher and student and among
students. In addition, the system takes advantage of the computers' capacity
to track the content of the interactions between users and to enable users
to do pinpoint searches of the record of these interactions. This feature
offers invaluable information that can serve as a source of insight for
both learners and teachers, information which in traditional writing classrooms
remains out of reach since it is highly distributed.
While the system described here is designed for second language writing
classes, it is more accurately seen as one component in an integrated language
learning environment that includes other skills, such as reading and listening
[Wible et al (00); Kuo et al (00a);
Kuo et al (00b)]. The modularized and integrated
design is intended to accommodate recent trends in language pedagogy which
view language skills as best learned in an integrated whole rather than
as a set of separate, independent skills. Finally, while the IWiLL environment
is designed specifically to meet the needs of certain type of language
course (second language composition) it is intended to provide as much
flexibility as possible so that teachers are free to use their own approaches
and the materials of their choice. In other words, the system offers a
platform compatible with any variety of curricula or syllabi.
2 The Organization of the System
2.1 The Teacher's View
We consider the system first from the point of view of a teacher. A
registered teacher who logs onto the system is presented a display
screen of various links to components within the system. To correct
student essays, the teacher links to a page which displays their
student roster. Each essay that a student has turned in over the
system is represented as a button appearing beside that student's name
on the roster. From this roster screen, the teacher retrieves the
essay by clicking on the button that represents that essay on the
roster page. To mark the essay with a comment (for
example, to mark a run-on sentence or subject-verb agreement
problem), the teacher first chooses the portion of the essay targeted
for comment using the mouse. Once the relevant text has been
selected, there are two ways for the teacher to provide the student
with a comment on it. The first is to simply type the comment in the
empty text box provided especially for the teacher's comment and then,
once the comment has been composed, append it to the intended portion
of the student's text by clicking on the appropriate button (`Give the
comment'). The second way of providing a comment is to choose one that
has been stored in a "Comment Bank." This second way
deserves some elaboration.
The Comment Bank provides each teacher with a convenient means for storing
and reusing frequently used comments. To retrieve a stored comment and
append it to the portion of the student essay, the teacher simply selects
that comment from a drop-down menu and clicks on it. The teacher can add
new comments to her Comment Bank at any time [see Figure
At this stage, research is needed to understand the factors effecting
how beneficial various sorts of comments are in helping students with their
writing. An advantage of this system is that, with it, researchers can
control the crucial variables (such as the precise form and content of
the teacher feedback being investigated), and it makes readily available
the data needed for such research since the marked and unmarked essays
are archived in forms that can be queried. Moreover, the revised versions
of an essay can be examined along side the teacher's comments that were
given to the student on the original version of the essay, making it possible
to easily track the influence of various types of teacher feedback.
Figure 1: Teachers' interface for marking student essays.
It is important to notice the distinction between this essay-marking
function and the superficially similar functions offered in commercial
word processors such as Microsoft Word. Like our system, those programs
allow users to select portions of text and annotate them with comments.
While the convenience that this provides to users as a communication tool
is essentially the heart of the function's role in these commercial word
processing systems, in our system this convenience is a relatively incidental
(though valuable) advantage. For us, the substantial value comes from a
set of related features which the word processing programs do not offer.
Specifically, all of the annotations provided in our system by teachers
when they mark essays are permanently indexed, by way of database technology,
to the portions of text that the teacher has marked. Moreover, the essays
themselves along with the indexed teacher comments enter a permanent corpus
of learner essays that can be searched on line. Information extraction
techniques, then, make it possible to provide learners and teachers with
instant cumulative profiles of the trouble spots of individual learners,
of whole classes of learners, or subtypes of learners selected by a wide
variety of criteria. For example, the system enables teachers to retrieve
all tokens that have been marked with a particular error type either from
the essays of a single learner or from the essays of groups of learners.
Moreover, teachers can retrieve the tokens of every error type and display
them in order of frequency, with the error type that has been marked on
the highest number of text portions listed first.
The role which our commenting function can play is deepened greatly
by the highly integrated nature of our system design. Not only does it
support profiles of entire groups of learners, but the analysis of the
common errors can be immediately used by researchers to analyze the sources
of learner difficulties. This sort of data makes it possible to investigate
pervasive patterns of difficulty in the learners' English (that is, to
investigate what some applied linguists call the 'interlanguage' of learners).
Results of such analyses can directly enhance the entire web-based writing
platform. Specifically, we have developed an authoring tool for designing
online help which targets precisely the problems uncovered in the analysis
of learners' errors. Moreover, based upon this sort of data, researchers
can improve the design of teaching and reference materials. [See section
2.3 below for more details.]
2.2 The Student's View
A registered student logging onto the system is first shown a menu of
links, including a link to a discussion board dedicated to the students
in that class and links to helpful websites for ESL writers. To compose
or turn in an essay, the student links to a page that displays a row of
colored buttons, basically each button (or cluster of buttons) representing
a different essay the student has written or is in the process of writing.
From this page, the student can opt to resume work on an unfinished essay
or revision, or to submit or compose a new essay [see Figure
To compose an essay, students can elect either to compose online by
typing their essay within a designated text box on the appropriate page
or to copy and paste into that box an essay composed off-line. The latter
essays are imported as text files.
From this screen where the essay has been composed or imported, students
can submit the essay to the instructor. Alternatively, through a drop-down
list of all of their classmates' names they can send the essay to any number
of their classmates for
peer editing or commenting. The methods of selecting portions of
text for comment and for submitting comments are basically the same as
under the teacher's view described above.
Figure 2: Students' interface for turning in new essays or
checking returned essays.
When a student views an essay that has been marked by the teacher, the
essay itself appears almost identical to the student's original, unmarked
essay. None of the teacher's comments are immediately visible. The only
difference in the appearance of the marked and unmarked version of an essay
is that in the 'corrected' version some of the student's text shows up
in blue. These are portions of the essay that the teacher has marked for
comment. To see the content of the teacher's comment, the student places
the cursor on the blue text and the comment appears.
An important feature offered to students is a specific sort of search
function which they can access through a link labeled: "Search all
comments in my essays." With this function, a student can access a
list of all of the comments that the teacher has marked on his essays.
The comments are listed in descending order of frequency as they occur
in the entire set of that particular student's essays.
By clicking on the View button for any of these comments that appear
on this display, the student retrieves a cumulative listing of all of the
instances where this comment appeared in his own essays. To give the minimum
context that would allow the student to see the nature of the marked problem,
this search function retrieves complete sentences from the student's texts
even if the teacher had marked only a word or phrase or other proper subpart
of that sentence for comment. In instances where the teacher has marked
off a chunk of text which spans a sentence boundary in the student essay,
the entire text of both (or all) of those sentences is displayed. By
clicking on any of the tokens that have been retrieved, the student
links to the complete text of the essay from which that token was
extracted, thus accessing the full context.
What the "View Comments" function provides is the opportunity
for the student to see patterns of difficulty, to see in one glance a set
of tokens of one type of difficulty from his own writing. Of course, what
is needed here is research on the differential effects of the two approaches
to providing feedback. Moreover, the effectiveness of the View Comments
function will almost certainly depend not simply on the fact that the system
allows searches of the essays according to teacher comments, but also upon
the quality and clarity of the comments themselves. An important property
designed into the system is that it can track precisely the kinds of data
needed for investigating these sorts of issues.
Another feature that exploits the system's record of teacher feedback
to the learner is what we refer to as system-triggered help. This feature
automatically tracks the number of times a teacher marks the same error
type within the writing of a single student. For certain error types that
have help pages available, such as sentence fragments, the system will
automatically notify the student when the number of instances of that error
type marked by the teacher in his or her essays exceeds a preset threshold.
For example, if the teacher marks more than three sentence fragments in
a student's writing, the system will notify that student with a message
that includes a link to the help page on that type of error, in this case
sentence fragments, and the help is offered in the students' first language,
Chinese [see Figure 3]. The result is that the teacher
need no longer shoulder the oppressively taxing task of keeping track of
each learner's various areas of difficulty. The system tracks this and
responds to the learners accordingly.
2.3 The Researcher's Tools
The system has been designed to create a corpus of student essays as
a byproduct of the teacher-student interaction on the system. Specifically,
each essay that a student submits to his teacher over this system is, with
the permission of that student, copied into a corpus of "learner English.
" Consequently the corpus itself grows as the system is used by students
and their teachers.
2.3.1 Automated Corpus Capture
The creation and analysis of corpora of learner language data is an
extremely new and promising field of research [see Granger
(98)]. One of the formidable obstacles in this field is a practical
one of how to input the learner data. [Granger (98):11]
mentions three methods, all extremely tedious, time-consuming, expensive
and the first two prone to error: (1) scanning essays from hard copies
and (2) keying in data manually (3) downloading electronic data. Granger
implies that the latter refers to collecting student essays that are on
disks. Our system offers another way of creating learner corpora which
goes a long way toward eliminating these prohibitive drawbacks. The texts
created by students enter the corpus virtually unaffected by
any intermediate steps for "inputting" them because the
exact text that the student sends to the teacher over the system is
copied into the corpus. The task of creating the corpus is thus
streamlined and reduces essentially to certain sorts of maintenance
work to delete duplicate essays or revised versions of earlier
Figure 3: Students' view of automatic teacher-triggered help
given in learners' L1.
Moreover, when students first register to use the system, they provide
relevant metadata about their years of studying English, their gender,
age, mother tongue, and the relevant fields of metadata are updated every
semester. Each essay a student turns in is automatically indexed to this
information and annotated with the date when that specific essay was submitted.
This indexing allows for longitudinal studies of learner writing as well
as cross-sectional studies that consider variables such as gender, age,
or years of study. Researchers can add other fields of metadata to track
other variables for specific studies. Researchers are not only able to
search the corpus of essays collected from learners.
2.3.2 Interlanguage Analysis and the Creation of Online Grammar Help
The results of the researcher's analyses of learner difficulties can
be translated into the content of an active online help function for those
learners. The system includes an authoring environment for content administrators
(ICPs) where they simply indicate what string of text in a learners essay
should trigger help, and then write the content of the help which should
be displayed for that particular string. Research on the learner corpus
has revealed, for example, that the word `ever' was misused by learners
in 25% of the cases where it appeared in their essays. Further analysis
attributed this to negative transfer in which learners associated the English
expression `ever' with a Chinese counterpart expression (cheng jing).
These two expressions while overlapping in use and meaning, diverge in
important ways, and it is precisely in these diverging respects where students
misused the English expression. `Ever' is what linguists refer to as a
negative polarity item, noting that its distribution is restricted to contexts
where it co-occurs with other expressions in particular configurations.
Specifically, `ever' is typically restricted to appearing in negative,
interrogative, or conditional clauses. The Mandarin counterpart, however,
has no such restriction. Hence, learners of English with a Chinese L1 commonly
neglect the negative polarity constraints governing `ever' and produce
sentences like "I have ever read an article on that topic." Based
on this linguistic analysis, the IWiLL authoring environment for online
help was used to design advice concerning the word `ever' addressing precisely
the difficulties it poses for Chinese learners. When learners request general
help on an essay, the help function actively detects instances of `ever',
highlights them and creates a link to this advise.
Another example of interlanguage analysis of the learner corpus which
has led to automated online help is based on the learners' use of the expression
"no matter." A keyword search of the learner corpus revealed
that Taiwan's learners misused this expression in one third of the instances
where it occurred. Moreover, a detailed look at the misused cases showed
that learners had not yet acquired the constraint that "no matter"
must be followed by an interrogative pronoun (who, what, when, where, etc.)
or interrogative complementizer (whether or if). This stage of acquisition
was attributed to the influence of L1 since the counterpart Chinese expression
(bu guan) has no such restriction. Based upon these results, an
automatic grammar checking component was designed to detect all misuses
of "no matter" as in "No matter you are rich or poor, you
need friends." The system responds by offering the learner an immediate
link to a tutorial that explains the misleading differences between English
"no matter" and Chinese bu guan and offers positive and
negative examples for practice [see Figure 4].
Figure 4: Grammar help which automatically detects misuses
of "no matter" and provides a tutorial pop-up
2.3.3 Analysis of Interlanguage and L2 Pedagogical Practice
The platform not only archives a learner corpus; that corpus is
annotated with teacher comments. Moreover, the system makes it
possible to extract all strings in the student writing that have been
marked with a particular error, for example, all instances within the
corpus that have been marked as sentence fragments. This data has a
wide variety of potential research applications. It allows, for
example, comparison of different teachers' style of correction. It can
create profiles of which error types teachers care most about. For
example, the teacher-annotated corpus shows that by far the most
common error type marked by teachers is word choice errors. By
storing each instance of a teacher's comment on an essay and indexing
each comment to the exact strings of student text marked with that
comment, the system permits easy extraction of each token in the
learner corpus that has been marked as a particular error type. With
this feature, we were able not only to discover that word choice is by
far the most common error type marked by teachers, we were able to
extract every single token marked as a word choice error. Hand
analysis of these tokens revealed that one in five of the word choice
errors were collocation errors. These results have provided us with
valuable data concerning which sorts of errors should be designed into
a grammar checker. For example, the
discovery of the pervasiveness of
collocation errors has led us to design an automatic collocation
correction software within the IWiLL writing environment (called
Lexical Assistant) which makes use of WordNet and standard English
corpora to offer lexical selections as alternatives to
mis-collocations [Wible et al (01)] [see Figure
Figure 5: Teachers' and researchers' interface for Lexical
The underlying goal of the project described above has been not only
to create an online writing environment that connects teachers and students
by way of a user-friendly interface, but also to provide ways to exploit
the valuable data that is created when the environment is used. The learners'
essays themselves are stored in growing corpus of ESL language production.
The comments that teachers append to the particular segments of the learners'
texts in the course of essay correction are treated as annotations of those
texts, which can be searched and retrieved. An authoring environment for
online help permits content administrators to turn interlanguage research
results into highly specific help concerning attested difficulties which
traditional language education has neglected. It is hoped that increasingly
sophisticated and dynamic manipulations of these sorts of data will lead
to the delivery of evermore useful and useable information to learners,
teachers, and researchers both online and off.
The research reported here was supported in part by a Pursuit of Excellence
research grant from the Ministry of Education of the ROC, grant #89-H-FA07-1-4-2.
This support is hereby gratefully acknowledged.
[Ferris (96)] Ferris, D.: "The case for grammar
correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott"; (1996).
Journal of Second Language Writing, 8-1 (1999),1-11.
[Granger (98)] Granger, S.: "The computer
learner corpus: a versatile new source of data in SLA research.",
In Sylviane Granger, Learner English on Computer.; Longman, New
[James (98)] James, C.: "Errors in Language
Learning and Use."; Longman, New York (1998)
[Kearsley (89)] Kearsley, G.: "Computer-aided
instruction, intelligent", In S. Shapiro (ed.) pp. 154-9, (1987)
[Kuo et al (00a)] Kuo, C.-H., David Wible, and
Chia-Lin Chio,: "On the design of a synchronous virtual writing clinic.";
[Kuo et al (00b)] Kuo, C.-H., David Wible, Meng-Chang
Chen, Li-Chun Sung, Nai-Lung Tsao, Chia-Lin Chio, and Chih-Chiang Wang:
"The design and implementation of an intelligent web-based interactive
language learning system." (manuscript), (2000)
[Krashen (94)] Krashen, S.: "The input hypothesis
and its rivals", in Ellis, N. (ed.) Implicit and Explicit Learning
of Languages; Academic Press, London (1994)
[Nerbonne (98)] Nerbonne, J. (ed): "Linguistic
Databases. Stanford"; CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and
[Neuwirth et al (96)] Neuwirth, M.C., Wojahn, G.P.:
"Learning to write: computer support for a cooperative process.",
In T. Koshmann, CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates; (1996), pp.147-70.
[Ogata et al (98)] Ogata, Hiroaki, Yano, Yoneo,
and Wakita, Riko CCML-"Exchanging marked-up documents in a networked
writing classroom."; CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning),
11-2 (1998), 201-214.
[Selinker (92)] Selinker, L.: "Rediscovering
interlanguage."; Longman, London (1992)
[Selinker (96)] Selinker, L.: "On the notion
'IL competence' in early SLA research: an aid to understanding some baffling
current issues.", In Brown, G., Malmkjaer, K. & Williams, J. (eds.).
Performance and competence in second language acquisition.; Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, (1996),92-113.
[Truscott (96)] Truscott, J.: "The case against
grammar correction in L2 writing classes."; Language Learning,
[Wible et al (01)] Wible, D., Chin-Hwa Kuo, Nai-lung
Tsao and Anne Liu: "An Investigation in Using WordNet to Automate
the Correction of Language Learners' Collocation Errors" Unpublished
manuscript, Tamkang University Taipei, Taiwan
[Wible et al (00)] Wible, D., Chin-Hwa Kuo, Nai-lung
Tsao, Anne Liu, Li-Chun Sung, and Chia-Lin Chio,: "Putting learners
first: an integrated multimedia environment for language learning"
International Conference on Engineering Education, Taipei (2000)
[Wible] Wible, D.: "SLA research, second language
writing, and the role of web-based learning environments," Unpublished
manuscript, Tamkang University, Taipei, Taiwan.