Automated Writing Evaluation in Language Teaching: Theory, Development, and Application

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

EFL students’ perception on the use of Grammarly and teacher feedback

“…Secondly, this study examined the students' perception on the use of Grammarly and teacher feedback to know whether the students take the benefits of the combination or not. The studies which focused on the effectiveness of AWE recomended researchers to find out more about the students' perspective on the implementation of different AWE programs Cotos (2011); Hegelheimer et al (2015). Lastly, this study, which uses Grammarly and teacher feedback at both high and low language proficiency levels, also investigates whether the two feedback strategies benefit particular students based on the language level.…”

College Students' Perceptions of an Automated Writing Evaluation as a Supplementary Feedback Tool in a Writing Class

“…Thus, it is suggested to perform the AWE in non-English major students (Yinghui & Dan, 2015). It has also been suggested to find out how the implementation of a different AWE program is perceived by the students (Hegelheimer et al, 2016). Certainly, the interface of different AWE programs can be one factor that determines its impact to the students.…”

Students’ and Teacher’s Perceptions towards the Implementation of ProWritingAid and Teacher Feedback

“…In fact, the students' view is essential to find out whether the students valued the use of an AWE program or not. As there are many studies focus on the effectiveness of AWE, it was suggested to find out more about the potential and students' view on the implementation of different AWE programs (Cotos, 2011;Hegelheimer et al, 2015). Most studies about AWE also largely conducted in the English language major classes.…”

“…4, No. 10, Bln Oktober, Thn 2019, Hal 1353-1363 (AWE) is software that can give automatic feedback to the students' writings (Hegelheimer, Dursun, & Li, 2015). Unlike the teacher or peer feedback that needs more time in generating feedback, AWE can give feedback instantly.…”

“…It is suggested that different AWE programs should be used to find their potentials (Stevenson & Phakiti, 2014). Having many kinds of research to compare the result of the studies can contribute to the development of the field and lead to the solution to any issues regarding the use of the program (Hegelheimer et al, 2015;Zupanc & Bosnic, 2015). In fact, from many AWE programs available, most researchers use Criterion or My Access!…”