ScholarWorks@성균관대학교

초록

The original version of this article was revised. The table below shows the incorrect and correct columns. Page No. Section Paragraph No. Line No. Incorrect Correct Page 4 2.2 Data selection Line 1 201 121 Page 5 2.2 Data selection Fig. 1 Source Complied Compiled Page 9 3.2.1 Educational level Line 2 Q(2) = 3.373 Q(1) = 3.660 Page 9 3.2.1 Educational level Line 3 g = 0.786 g = 0.772 Page 9 3.2.2 Target language Line 2 Q(2) Q(1) Page 9 3.2.2. Target language Line 3 p > 0.05 p = 0.000 Page 9 3.2.2 Target language Line 4 p = 0.000 p > 0.05 Page 9 3.2.3 Language domain Line 2 Q(7) Q(6) Page 9 3.2.3 Language domain Line 3 p < 0.05 p = 0.000 Page 13 3.2.3 Language domain Line 1 p > 0.05 p = 0.000 Page 13 3.2.3 Language domain Line 2 n = 4 k = 4 Page 13 3.2.3 Language domain Line 4 p = 0.000 p > 0.05 Page 13 3.2.4 Learning outcome Line 3 p > 0.05 d = 0.578 p = 0.000 g = 0.578 Page 13 3.2.4 Learning outcome Line 4 g = 0.312, k = 14, p = 0.000 g = 0.312, k = 14, p > 0.05 Page 13 3.2.4 Learning outcome Line 5 Q(3) Q(2) Page 13 3.2.5 Instruction duration Line 2 p > 0.05 p = 0.000 Page 13 3.2.5 Instruction duration Line 4 p = 0.000 p > 0.05 Page 13 3.2.5 Instruction duration Line 5 Q(3) Q(2) Page 13 3.2.6 Chatbot interface Line 2 p < 0.05 p = 0.000 Page 13 3.2.6 Chatbot interface Line 3 p = 0.000 p < 0.05 Page 13 3.2.6 Chatbot interface Line 4 Q(2) Q(1) Page 13 3.2.7 Chatbot development Line 2 Q(2) Q(1) Page 13 3.2.8 Task dominance Line 2 Q(2) Q(1) Page 13 3.2.9 Interaction way Line 5 Q(2) Q(1) Page 15 5.1 Effectiveness of CALL Lines 9–12 CALL is effective in all three learning outcomes. Our findings are in line with the results of Wei et al. (2021) in that positive behavioral learning and affective learning outcomes contribute to improved cognitive learning outcomes. CALL is effective for cognitive learning outcomes and behavioral learning outcomes, whereas the effect on affective learning outcomes did not reach statistical significance. Page 16 5.2 Toward a more comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of CALL Line 7 it was significantly more effective in learning L1. it was significantly more effective in learning L2. Page 16 5.2 Toward a more comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of CALL Lines 7–11 We suspect two reasons for this conclusion. First, L2 acquisition is more complex and challenging than L1 (Lee & Lee, 2022). Moreover, Jeon (2021b) mentioned that students have better language learning performance when they have a certain level of language knowledge before using the chatbot. We suspect that this is because CALL has been more commonly implemented in L2 contexts. Moreover, Jeon (2021b) mentioned that chatbots can provide learners with abundant opportunities for interaction and practice, while also offering immediate feedback during communication. These affordances may be especially valuable in L2 learning. Page 16 5.2 Toward a more comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of CALL Line 12 future research should improve its use for L2 as much as possible. future research should improve its use for L1 as much as possible. Page 11 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 2 0.786 0.160 0.472 1.101 4.900 0.772 0.157 0.463 1.080 4.901 Page 11 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 3 4.675 4.563 Page 11 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 4 3.737 0.053 3.660 0.056 Page 11 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 5 1.091 0.308 6.493 0.000 Page 11 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 6 6.493 0.000 1.019 0.308 Page 11 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 8 3.291 0.001 5.745 0 Page 11 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 10 1.497 0.134 3.729 0 Page 11 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 11 1.071 0.284 1.497 0.134 Page 11 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 12 3.729 0.000 3.291 0.001 Page 11 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 13 5.745 0.000 1.071 0.284 Page 11 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 16 1.902 0.057 4.583 0 Page 11 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 17 4.583 6.376 Page 11 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 18 -0.009 6.376 0 -0.010 1.902 0.057 Page 11 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 20 0.844 0.398 5.080 0 Page 11 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 22 5.080 0.000 0.844 0.398 Page 12 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 2 3.151 0.002 5.943 0 Page 12 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 3 5.943 0 3.151 0.002 Page 12 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 5 3.501 5.574 Page 12 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 6 5.574 3.501 Page 12 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 8 0.016 4.108 0.125 5.150 Page 12 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 9 0.011 5.150 0.105 4.108 Page 12 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 11 4.366 4.785 Page 12 Table 3 Moderator analysis Line 12 4.785 4.366 The online version of the original article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11805-6.