Reflection on Using the Criterion Online Writing Evaluation Service
2
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of the study is to explore the EFL learners’ perspectives on Criterion Online Writing Evaluation Service. The participants of the study were second year university students in English writing course. The students were to use Criterion to receive feedback, and their perspectives were investigated through quantitatively using a questionnaire and qualitatively through content analysis of the questionnaire. A total of 215 questionnaires were collected and analyzed. The results of the study revealed that the students had the most difficulty with dealing with sentence structure and less difficulty with grammar,vocabulary, content, and organization. The majority of the reasons why Criterion is good were devoted to the mechanical or functional aspects such as promptness, easiness, convenience, or spelling check, occupying 62% of the total responses. On the other hand, Criterion had limitations in that it could not provide adequate and direct feedback at a sentence-level that the students needed in order to improve their writing skills. This study calls for more careful attention when employing an automated writing evaluation service. It is suggested to consider first the purpose of using Criterion, whether it is being used to diagnose students’ writing proficiency or used as a teaching/learning tool for developing students’ writing skills.
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to explore the EFL learners’ perspectives on Criterion Online Writing Evaluation Service. The participants of the study were second year university students in English writing course. The students were to use Criterion to receive feedback, and their perspectives were investigated through quantitatively using a questionnaire and qualitatively through content analysis of the questionnaire. A total of 215 questionnaires were collected and analyzed. The results of the study revealed that the students had the most difficulty with dealing with sentence structure and less difficulty with grammar,vocabulary, content, and organization. The majority of the reasons why Criterion is good were devoted to the mechanical or functional aspects such as promptness, easiness, convenience, or spelling check, occupying 62% of the total responses. On the other hand, Criterion had limitations in that it could not provide adequate and direct feedback at a sentence-level that the students needed in order to improve their writing skills. This study calls for more careful attention when employing an automated writing evaluation service. It is suggested to consider first the purpose of using Criterion, whether it is being used to diagnose students’ writing proficiency or used as a teaching/learning tool for developing students’ writing skills.
참고문헌 (18)
- Burstein,J, "The E-rater scoring engine: automated essay scoring with natural language processing in Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective" (2003), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- 최윤정, "영어 논술 채점 컴퓨터 프로그램의 비교·분석", 교육평가연구, 19(1), pp.145~160 (2006), 한국교육평가학회
- Clauser,B.E, "Recurrent issues and recent advances in scoring performance assessments", Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, pp.310~324 (2000)
- Educational Testing Service, "Criterion online writing evaluation service", ETS, ~ (2006)
- Educational Testing Service, "Resource guide: Supporting writing instruction with the Criterion online writing evaluation service", ETS, ~ (2007)
- Educational Testing Service, "User manual: Criterion online writing evaluation v. 8.1 July 2008", ETS, ~ (2008)
- Educational Testing Service, "Criterion enhancements July 2009 v. 9.1", ETS, ~ (2009)
- Elliot,S, "IntelliMetric: From here to validity in Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective" (2003), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- Ellis,R, "A typology of written corrective feedback types", ELT Journal, 63(2), pp.97~107 (2009)
- Ellis, R, "The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context", System, 36, pp.353~371 (2008)
- Ferris, D. R, "The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes. A response to Truscott (1996)", Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, pp.1~10 (1996)
- Leacock, C, "C-rater: Automated scoring of short-answer questions", Computers and Humanities, 37, pp.389~405 (2003)
- Rudner, L. M, "Automated essay scoring using Bayes’ theorem", The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1(2), pp.3~21 (2002)
- Shermis, M. D, "Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective" (2003), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- Shin,S-K, "‘Fire your proofreader!’ Grammar correction in the writing classroom", ELT Journal, 62(4), pp.358~365 (2008)
- Truscott,J, "The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.Language", Learning, 46, pp.327~369 (1996)
- Truscott,J, "The case for “the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: a response to Ferris", Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, pp.111~122 (1999)
- Valenti, S, "An overview of current research on automated essay grading", Journal of Information Technology Education, 2, pp.319~330 (2003)