Effects of an Automated Writing Evaluation Program: Student Experiences and Perceptions.
Saved in:
| Title: | Effects of an Automated Writing Evaluation Program: Student Experiences and Perceptions. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Pei-ling Wang1 peiling@kuas.edu.tw |
| Source: | Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. 2015, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p79-100. 22p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Limited English-proficient students, *Foreign language education, *Digital media, Writing automation, English language |
| Abstract: | The issue of whether automated writing evaluation programs facilitate student writing has provoked numerous discussions over the last two decades, but most findings are inconclusive. This study examines the degree of student satisfaction with the functions of Criterion®, how the program affects the revision practices of students, and why the program is helpful or unhelpful. The researcher surveyed 53 English major students at a Taiwanese university and examined 530 writing samples from them to discover the strengths and weaknesses of the program. This study used quantitative and qualitative methods to collect the data. The results revealed that many students valued the instant scoring speed (93.8%), the error analysis of usage (75.5%), and the feedback for organization and development (71.4%). However, most students were dissatisfied with the program's scoring rubric (8.2%) and scoring summary (34.7%), the style error analysis (26.5%), and the 'Plan' tool (26.5%). The analysis of error correction rates in students' final drafts confirmed that the feedback for grammar and usage errors was much more useful for student revision than the feedback for mechanics and style errors. The researcher verification showed that the current Criterion® tool is limited in its ability to detect errors related to tenses, conjunctions, compound words, word choice, and word order of indirect questions. Another problem of the program is that it may occasionally generate false alarm messages. AWEs have both merits and drawbacks, which may explain why approximately two-thirds of participants believed that the combination of machine scoring with the teacher's explanations was the optimal implementation method for a writing class. Future studies may include more participants and investigate the extent to which these findings can be generalized to students with limited English writing proficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching is the property of Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: ehh DbLabel: Education Research Complete An: 109278318 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Effects of an Automated Writing Evaluation Program: Student Experiences and Perceptions. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pei-ling+Wang%22">Pei-ling Wang</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> peiling@kuas.edu.tw</i> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Electronic+Journal+of+Foreign+Language+Teaching%22">Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching</searchLink>. 2015, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p79-100. 22p. – Name: Subject Label: Subject Terms Group: Su Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Limited+English-proficient+students%22">Limited English-proficient students</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+language+education%22">Foreign language education</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Digital+media%22">Digital media</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+automation%22">Writing automation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+language%22">English language</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: The issue of whether automated writing evaluation programs facilitate student writing has provoked numerous discussions over the last two decades, but most findings are inconclusive. This study examines the degree of student satisfaction with the functions of Criterion®, how the program affects the revision practices of students, and why the program is helpful or unhelpful. The researcher surveyed 53 English major students at a Taiwanese university and examined 530 writing samples from them to discover the strengths and weaknesses of the program. This study used quantitative and qualitative methods to collect the data. The results revealed that many students valued the instant scoring speed (93.8%), the error analysis of usage (75.5%), and the feedback for organization and development (71.4%). However, most students were dissatisfied with the program's scoring rubric (8.2%) and scoring summary (34.7%), the style error analysis (26.5%), and the 'Plan' tool (26.5%). The analysis of error correction rates in students' final drafts confirmed that the feedback for grammar and usage errors was much more useful for student revision than the feedback for mechanics and style errors. The researcher verification showed that the current Criterion® tool is limited in its ability to detect errors related to tenses, conjunctions, compound words, word choice, and word order of indirect questions. Another problem of the program is that it may occasionally generate false alarm messages. AWEs have both merits and drawbacks, which may explain why approximately two-thirds of participants believed that the combination of machine scoring with the teacher's explanations was the optimal implementation method for a writing class. Future studies may include more participants and investigate the extent to which these findings can be generalized to students with limited English writing proficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching is the property of Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=109278318 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 22 StartPage: 79 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Limited English-proficient students Type: general – SubjectFull: Foreign language education Type: general – SubjectFull: Digital media Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing automation Type: general – SubjectFull: English language Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Effects of an Automated Writing Evaluation Program: Student Experiences and Perceptions. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Pei-ling Wang IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 06 Text: 2015 Type: published Y: 2015 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 02199874 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 12 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
