Recursive editing with Google Translate: the impact on writing and error correction

AbstractAbstractMachine Translation (MT) tools have advanced to a level of reliability such that it is now opportune to consider their place in language teaching and learning. Given their potential, the current study sought to engage EFL university sophomores in recursive editing afforded by Google Translate (GT) for one semester, and investigated (1) whether the students were able to correct errors assisted by GT, (2) whether GT facilitated better writing, (3) which aspects of writing, fluency, complexity or accuracy GT better assisted the learners with, and (4) the student's attitudes toward GT. A quasi-experimental approach was adopted where the experimental group, comprising 34 students, received training in recursive editing while the control group, comprising 33 students, did not. Both groups completed an error-correction test and an essay pre- and post-intervention. The experimental group completed an additional Affective Filter and Task Difficulty questionnaire post-intervention. The results showed that the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group on the error correction test; however, no significant difference in the two groups' writing scores was found. Further, the evaluation of writing fluency, accuracy, and complexity yielded a mixed picture. The control group demonstrated significantly better fluency as shown in sentence, clause, and T-unit counts, but not in total word count. The experimental group, conversely, showed significantly higher syntactic complexity in mean length of clause, and significantly better accuracy in writing post-intervention. Finally, the students were generally positive about using GT to learn in terms of anxiety, motivational belief, and task complexity.Keywords: Machine translationGoogle Translateerror correctionwriting performancerecursive editing Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Additional informationFundingWe wish to express our gratitude to the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their precious comments. This research is funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 108-2410-H-003-050), and supported by the Research Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences, MOST, Taiwan.Notes on contributorsPeichin ChangPeichin Chang holds a Ph.D. in Education from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Her area of interests include academic/research writing, discourse analysis, learning sciences and technology, and multimodal language learning. She is currently Associate Professor in the English Department of National Taiwan Normal University (162, Section 1, Heping E. Rd., Taipei City 106, Taiwan).Pin-Ju ChenPin-Ju Chen holds a Ph.D. in Education from National University of Tainan, Taiwan. His area of interests include literacy, digital learning, and teacher education. He is currently Assistant Professor in Teacher Education Center of Ming Chuan University (5 De Ming Rd., Gui Shan District, Taoyuan County 333, Taiwan).Li-Ling LaiLi-Ling Lai is currently a Ph.D. student in National Taiwan Normal University and an experienced senior high school English teacher. Her area of interests include teachers' beliefs and writing.Notes1 One participant in the experimental group and two participants in the control group did not take the error correction posttest, and two participants from both groups did not submit post-intervention essays. The reasons include absence from class, dropping out of the course halfway, and plagiarism.2 The experiment has obtained approval from the Research Ethics Committee at the National Taiwan Normal University (case number: 201905HS091).