You are here:

Potential of Computerized Feedback in ESL and EFL Writing classes
PROCEEDINGS

, Handong Global University, Korea (South) ; , Soongsil University, Korea (South)

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-90-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

This study examined the impact of the Automated Essay Scoring (AES) on improving English writing quality across different levels of integration (No-AES, Optional-AES, and Integrated-AES) in two English learning contexts (ESL and EFL). A total of 172 ELL students participated in this study. To examine the effectiveness of the intervention, students’ essays, student surveys, instructor interviews, and course documents were collected and analyzed. The results showed the type of AES integration significantly influenced the quality of an essay in terms of holistic quality and accuracy. The Integrated-AES group showed better performance in improving the quality of essays. The findings suggest that AES can effectively assist students’ writing when it is integrated with writing instruction as a formative assessment tool. Based on the findings, implications for writing instruction are suggested to teachers and administrators who are interested in AES integration, in addition to suggestions for AES development.

Citation

Choi, J. & Lee, Y. (2011). Potential of Computerized Feedback in ESL and EFL Writing classes. In C. Ho & M. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2011--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1103-1112). Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved January 22, 2021 from .

© 2011 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anson, C.M. (1999). Distant voices: Teaching and writing in a culture of technology. College English, 61(3), 261-280.
  2. Attali, Y. (2004). Exploring the feedback and revision features of Criterion. National Council on Measurement in Education
  3. Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater V. 2. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(3), 1-31.
  4. Burstein, J. (2003). The e-rater scoring engine: Automated essay scoring with natural language processing. In M.D. Shermis, & J.C. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: Across-disciplinary perspective (pp. 113-121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
  5. Cumming, A. (2003). Experienced ESL/EFL writing instructors’ conceptualizations of their teaching: Curriculum options and implications. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 71– 92). Cambridge: Cambridge
  6. Elliot, S. (2003). IntelliMetric: From here to validity. In M.D. Shermis, & J.C. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: Across-disciplinary perspective (pp. 71-86). Mahwah, JJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  7. Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.
  8. Ferris, D. (2004). The“ grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here?(and what do we do in the meantime… ?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62.
  9. Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and between-pre-and-post-test effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104)
  10. Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Judd, E.L. (1981). Language policy, curriculum development, and TESOL instruction: A search for compatibility. TESOL Quarterly, 15(1), 59-66.
  12. Kachru, B.B. (1986). The alchemy of English. New York: Pergamon Press.
  13. Keith, T.Z. (2003). Validity of automated essay scoring systems. In M.D. Shermis, & J.C. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: Across-disciplinary perspective (pp. 147 – 167). Mahwah, JJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  14. Kepner, C.G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313.
  15. Lee, I. (1997). ESL Learners' performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System, 25(4), 465-477.
  16. Moag, R. (1982). English as aforeign, second, native and basal language: a new taxonomy of English-using societies. New Englishes, 1, 1-50.
  17. Nayar, P.B. (1997). ESL/EFL dichotomy today: Language politics or pragmatics? TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 9-37.
  18. Page, E.B. (2003). Project essay grade: PEG. In M.D. Shermis, & J.C. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A crossdisciplinary perspective (pp. 43-54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  19. Semke, H.D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195-202.
  20. Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 103.
  21. Shermis, M.D., & Burstein, J. (2003). Automated essay scoring: Across-disciplinary perspective. Associates, 16, 238.
  22. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
  23. Warden, C., & Chen, J. (1995). Improving feedback while decreasing teacher burden in ROC ESL business English writing classes. Explorations in English for professional communications (pp. 125-137). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.
  24. Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 105-122). U.S.: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 157.
  26. Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 195-209.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections