In the past decade, a new wave of writing assessment tools has evolved as a result of advances in computer technology, highlighting the potential of automated writing evaluation (AWE) tools in the English as a second language (ESL) writing programs and comprising a concerted effort to move from use of AWE tools for testing to teaching. Today's innovative AWE tools offer ESL instructors promising solutions for providing immediate feedback and meeting the demands for better practices in the digital age. However, the outcomes of using AWE are not free of challenges (Chen & Cheng, 2008; Wang, Shang, & Briody, 2012) and necessitate a comprehensive understanding about how to effectively integrate AWE and improve students' writing (Ware, 2011). In situ studies are, therefore, necessary to identify the ways in which teachers are incorporating AWE into their classrooms in order to provide an insight into best practices. This longitudinal qualitative study investigates the practices and perspectives of five university-level writing instructors as they meet challenges and possibilities of using AWE in seven ESL writing courses. Data collection included observations, individual interviews, and delayed focus group interviews. In this paper, we highlight ESL instructors' teaching strategies, perception of the effectiveness, satisfaction, and concerns with the AWE tool (Criterion) they employed. We also describe changes in strategies and perceptions after a second semester of using the AWE tool. We conclude with final suggestions for best practices for integration of AWE into the ESL curriculum. Our research intends to expand the current knowledge of AWE by outlining appropriate and effective implementation of AWE technologies.

No abstract

The first automated writing evaluation (AWE) software for assessment purposes dates back to the 1960s when Page Ellis developed Project Essay Grade (PEG). Rapid advances in the fields of artificial intelligence and Natural Language Processing (NLP) in the last few decades have led to the development of more powerful commercial scoring engines, such as e-rater, developed by ETS, IntelliMetric by Vantage Learning, and Intelligent Essay Assessor (IEA) by Pearson Education. Recent years have seen the application of these scoring engines expanding to language learning and teaching contexts (i.e., Criterion, WriteToLearn, MyAccess!). Opinions on the utility of AWE tools and their potential effects on educational practices vary, as shown by two frequently-cited books on AWE: Ericsson and Haswell (2006) and Shermis and Burstein (2013). While many AWE tools are promising with reportedly high reliability, the use of AWE in writing classrooms has provoked heated discussion and strong opposition, as articulated in the 2004 position statement of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC). Most recently, Chapelle, Cotos, and Lee (2015) have proposed a new, argument-based approach to evaluating the use of AWE-based assessments. In general, more studies are needed to evaluate the use of AWE tools in classrooms and beyond. This Special Issue intends to extend the discussion by bringing together a variety of studies related to

The tablet project was undertaken in 2013 to explore the creation of an assessment to reveal English language learners' (ELLs') language capabilities in content area classes such as science. Such assessments could ideally be useful in multiple phases of the instructional process by providing information to learners, teachers, and other stakeholders because the technologies allow for efficiencies of task presentation, response gathering, scoring, storing data, and returning results. With the goal of understanding the development costs required to achieve such benefits, the project used an evidence‐centered design (ECD) framework to create a prototype assessment for ELL middle school students. In addition to describing the ECD process, the report describes how the project mandate helped to focus the complex processes of ECD and how the activities of ECD came into play in sketching plans for the validity argument. The ECD process of domain analysis uncovered perspectives on tablet use in middle schools as well as theoretical perspectives for conceptualizing the tablet users' abilities and learning. Findings included a range of uses of mobile technologies in middle school classrooms in 2013, with little uniformity in practices. Based on analysis of common elements in tablet‐based communication and learning, a framework for characterizing the relevant strategies and abilities was developed. Findings served in the domain modeling process of defining task design patterns, which in turn provided the basis for planning the conceptual assessment framework (CAF). The CAF also drew upon domain analysis findings, which suggested the concepts required for defining a student model (what is to be inferred about the test taker), an evidence model (the basis for making the inference), and the task model (the features of tasks required for eliciting relevant performance). The assessment implementation process produced a working prototype that served in usability testing and gathering feedback from middle school teachers. The report describes how ECD guides the design of tablet‐based formative assessment tasks that take into account the constructs to be measured and the learning that should result from test taking. The evaluation of the project is undertaken in view of the goal of ECD to design test tasks in a manner that serves in the argument for their use. Success is therefore evaluated in part by an analysis of the quality of content it supplied for an interpretation/use argument for the assessment. Overall, the project highlights include (a) the demonstration of how a mandate delimits the ECD processes; (b) the construct framework encompassing both the linguistic and nonlinguistic resources used to create meaning in a digital environment; (c) the approach used for analysis of a domain with emerging, shifting, and variously used technologies; and (d) the use of an interpretation/use argument in the appraisal of an ECD test design.

As part of a larger effort to support Less Commonly Taught Languages (LCTL) instruction in the United States, the LCTL Partnership at Michigan State University (MSU) and the LCTL Collaborative Partners initiative at the University of Chicago (UC) are supporting online LCTL courses to be offered to students across multiple institutions. As the initiatives were underway, it became clear that LCTL teachers’ familiarity with online teaching ranged widely. This is not surprising, especially considering that many LCTL teachers have never participated in any kind of online learning experience – let alone taught online. This paper reports on the first phase of a collaborative project that aims to identify and define key competencies for Online Language Teaching (OLT) and conceptualize a set of OLT readiness can-do statements. In a next phase, this framework will be used to build an assessment that gauges teachers’ readiness to teach language courses online and provide these teachers with formative feedback.