The Impact of Criterion Writing Evaluation Technology on Criminal Justice Student Writing Skills

Schroeder, Julie; Grohe, Bonnie; Pogue, Rene

doi:10.1080/10511250802476269

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, evidence of effectiveness began to be sought from users' experiences and outcomes. User-centric results show varied student/teacher perceptions, increased student motivation and learner autonomy, positive feedback effects, as well as enhanced understanding of errors and writing improvement (Attali, 2004;Chen & Cheng, 2008;Chung & Baker, 2003;El Ebyary & Windeatt, 2010;Elliot & Mikulas, 2004;Foltz, Laham, & Landauer, 1999;Li, Link, Ma, Yang, & Hegelheimer, 2014;Link, Dursun, Karakaya, & Hegelheimer, 2014;Rich, Schneider, & D'Brot, 2013;Schroeder, Grohe, & Pogue, 2008;Ware, 2011Ware, , 2014. Although the increasing number of studies sheds positive light on the potential of AWE, evidence accumulated to support its validity is relatively inconsistent and, hence, insufficiently informative for use in writing classrooms.…”

Section: Aes For Assessment and Awe For Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated Writing Analysis for Writing Pedagogy

Cotos

2015

WAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to engage specialists in writing pedagogy, assessment, genre study, and educational technologies in a constructive dialog and joint exploration of automated writing analysis as a potent instantiation of computer-enhanced assessment for learning. It recounts the values of writing pedagogy and, from this perspective, examines legitimate concerns with automated writing analysis. Emphasis is placed on the need to substantiate the construct-driven debate with systematic empirical evidence that would corroborate or refute interpretations, uses, and consequences of automated scoring and feedback tools intended for specific contexts. Such evidence can be obtained by adopting a validity argument framework. To demonstrate an application of this framework, the article presents a novel genre-based approach to automated analysis configured to support research writing and provides examples of validity evidence for using it with novice scholarly writers. Automated Writing Analysis for writing pedagogy: From healthy tension to tangible prospects Elena Cotos AbstractThis article aims to engage specialists in writing pedagogy, assessment, genre study, and educational technologies in a constructive dialog and joint exploration of automated writing analysis as a potent instantiation of computer-enhanced assessment for learning. It recounts the values of writing pedagogy and, from this perspective, examines legitimate concerns with automated writing analysis. Emphasis is placed on the need to substantiate the construct-driven debate with systematic empirical evidence that would corroborate or refute interpretations, uses, and consequences of automated scoring and feedback tools intended for specific contexts. Such evidence can be obtained by adopting a validity argument framework. To demonstrate an application of this framework, the article presents a novel genre-based approach to automated analysis configured to support research writing and provides examples of validity evidence for using it with novice scholarly writers.

show abstract

Section: Aes For Assessment and Awe For Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated Writing Analysis for Writing Pedagogy

Cotos

2015

WAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This finding compares with that of Warschauer and Grimes (2008) that students might not re-draft an essay more than once. Schroeder, Grohe and Pogue (2008) also conducted research into AWE software and 43% of their students who could have used the software did not. Whilst this is less than the 71% (n = 23,567) of Attali's students who did not redraft their essays, it does demonstrate that Attali's research was not unique in having students not make full use of AWE.…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

What Barriers do Students Perceive to Engagement with Automated Immediate Formative Feedback

Foster

2019

Journal of Interactive Media in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A small preliminary PhD research project used OpenEssayist, a web based automated writing evaluation (AWE) system designed to provide immediate formative feedback to students, to gain insights into how students use such systems. One of the themes which emerged from the data analysis was that most of the students on the module did not make use of OpenEssayist, which raised the question of why? Are there barriers to student use of immediate AWE feedback? The low uptake of use of OpenEssayist reflects the findings of (Attali, 2004), whose research on the Criterion AWE system found that 71% of students did not make use of the redrafting facilities of Criterion and were excluded from his data. All thirty (n = 30) students on the module subject of the preliminary research had the opportunity to use OpenEssayist, regardless of whether they participated in the research, only four students chose to do so. Two students who did not use OpenEssayist were interviewed. The first did not use OpenEssayist for technical reasons, the second did not have enough time to learn about the software. It is not known why the other students did not make use of OpenEssayist. This short paper reports on the preliminary findings of non-use of AWE and outlines how that has led to a research question for a PhD project, which is a work-in-progress. The question is: Are there barriers to student use of immediate AWE feedback?

show abstract

“…Writing is a necessary skill set needed by undergraduates as they pursue careers. However, writing skills for undergraduates have to meet employers' expectations for many careers [1][2][3][4][5]. For example, law enforcement and correctional officers need strong writing skills because they will often be required to write incident reports.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two major issues stressed in WAC were Writing in the Disciplines (WID) and Writing to Learn (WTL). Writing in the discipline involves "basic writing skills and critical thinking, problem solving and specialized knowledge such that students' command of subject and writing makes it possible for them to write well for different purposes and different audiences" [5]. "Writing to learn advocates support implementing certain types of writing exercises that appear to enhance student learning and writing performance" [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Writing in the discipline involves "basic writing skills and critical thinking, problem solving and specialized knowledge such that students' command of subject and writing makes it possible for them to write well for different purposes and different audiences" [5]. "Writing to learn advocates support implementing certain types of writing exercises that appear to enhance student learning and writing performance" [5]. This pedagogy treats writing as an essential element of critical thinking both as a learning skill and a professional skill [1,3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scaffolding Rubrics to Improve Student Writing: Preliminary Results of Using Rubrics in a Sociology Program to Enhance Learning and Mechanical Writing Skills

Carson

Kavish

2018

Societies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the era of accreditation, academic accountability and transparency within curriculum is becoming a desired standard within and across disciplines. Through the use of course learning outcomes, program outcomes can be strengthened. Scaffolding within curricula can benefit both accountability and assessment goals. Through the use of Bloom's cognitive taxonomy, scaffolding within the course can be used to aid in the accomplishment of the course learning outcomes. Scaffolding within the course curriculum can move students through Bloom's cognitive taxonomy levels toward the mastery of specific skills. Writing is a major area of assessment as an indication of learning across disciplines. Scaffolding rubrics were used within sociology courses to specifically address both student learning and mechanical writing skills. Preliminary results of using rubrics to enhance student learning and scaffolding in eight courses (one 100-level, one 200-level, two 300-level, and four 400-level sociology courses) will be presented.

show abstract

The Impact of Criterion Writing Evaluation Technology on Criminal Justice Student Writing Skills

Cited by 15 publications

References 14 publications

Automated Writing Analysis for Writing Pedagogy

Automated Writing Analysis for Writing Pedagogy

What Barriers do Students Perceive to Engagement with Automated Immediate Formative Feedback

Scaffolding Rubrics to Improve Student Writing: Preliminary Results of Using Rubrics in a Sociology Program to Enhance Learning and Mechanical Writing Skills

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About