This paper is in response to the article entitled "The process of designing for learning: understanding university teachers' design work" (Bennett et al., Educ Tech Res Dev 65:125-145, 2017). Bennett et al. (Educ Tech Res Dev 65:125-145) present a descriptive model of the design process that reports findings from a qualitative study investigating the design processes of 30 instructors from 16 Australian universities through semi-structured interviews. This exploratory study provides rich, contextualized descriptions about university teachers' design process and pinpoints key design characteristics as top-down, breadthfirst, iterative, responsive, and reflective. These key design characteristics revealed by the rich contextual descriptions could provide applicable insights into the design process especially for new instructors. The findings of the study could inform how learning design could be adapted during an emergency remote teaching (ERT) as it is dynamic and open to revision. A noteworthy limitation of the study is that complementary data such as design artifacts could be utilized to ensure data triangulation in addition to self-reported data obtained via interviews. The study found that university instructors' design process did not appear to draw on instructional design models. Therefore, future studies could focus on to what extent and how such models could be used by university instructors. Lastly, future studies may explore how technology is used in ERT design to support their needs. In this article, I share how design can be informed by humanizing pedagogy and pedagogy of care during ERT. Keywords Design • Emergency remote teaching • ERT • Design process • Studentcentered • Humanizing pedagogy • Pedagogy of care In the midst of the COVID-19 outbreak, many higher education institutions around the world had to make a sudden shift to online instruction. The abrupt transition to online instruction was named as "emergency remote teaching" (ERT) due to the challenges caused by the outbreak (Hodges et al. 2020, para. 5; Milman 2020, para. 3). It is known Notes: "University teacher" and "university instructor" are used interchangeably in the paper.

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

No abstract