본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Exploring the Influence of Automated Writing Evaluation on Teacher Feedback and Student Writing Performance

Pyung-hwa Jung|Hee-Kyung Lee
아시아테플 (AsiaTEFL (The Asian Association of Teachers of English As a Foreign Language))|2024.09|Journal of Asia TEFL|제21권 제3호|pp. 553-569|DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2024.21.3.3.553

2

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

corrective feedbacksecond language writingautomated writing evaluation program

초록

이 연구의 목적은 한국의 한 고등학교에서 AWE 프로그램을 사용하는 것이 교사의 피드백과학습자의 글쓰기 수행에 미치는 영향을 조사하는 것입니다. 26명의 학생들은 AWE 프로그램과교사로부터 통합적인 피드백을 받는 그룹과 교사로부터 통합적인 피드백을 받는 그룹으로나뉘었습니다. 그 결과 AWE 프로그램을 사용하면 교사가 제공하는 피드백의 양이 줄어들어피드백에 소요되는 시간과 노력이 감소하는 것으로 나타났습니다. 구체적으로, 하위 수준의피드백을 제공하는 데 있어 교사의 부담이 상당히 완화되었습니다. AWE 프로그램은 문법과철자 오류를 수정하는 데 탁월했고, 교사는 상황별 문제에 초점을 맞추었습니다. 다섯 가지분석적 글쓰기 특징에 대한 학생들의 에세이를 분석한 결과, 통합적 피드백 그룹은 전체분석적인 쓰기 점수에 유의미한 차이가 없었지만 어휘와 표기법에서 유의미한 향상을 보였고교사 전용 그룹은 조직에서 유의미한 향상을 보였습니다. 그 결과를 바탕으로 추가적인교육학적 제안과 시사점을 논의합니다.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of using an Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) program in a Korean high school on both teacher feedback and learner writing performance. Twentysix students were divided into two groups: one receiving integrated feedback from the AWE program and the teacher, and the other receiving feedback solely from the teacher. Results indicated that using the AWE program reduced the quantity of feedback provided by the teacher, thus decreasing the time and effort required for feedback. Specifically, the teacher’s burden in providing lower-level feedback was significantly alleviated. The AWE program excelled in correcting grammar and spelling errors, while the teacher focused on context-specific issues. Analysis of students’ essays on five analytic writing features revealed that, although there were no significant differences in overall analytic writing scores between groups, the integrated feedback group showed significant improvement in vocabulary and mechanics, whereas the teacher-only group improved in organization. Further pedagogical suggestions and implications are discussed based on the results.

참고문헌 (46)

  1. Attali, Y., "Exploring the feedback and revision features of Criterion", Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), pp.191~205 (2004)
  2. Bitchener, J., "Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing" (2012), Routledge
  3. Chen, C. F. E., "Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation : Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes", Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), pp.94~112 (2008)
  4. Cotos, E., "Technology across writing contexts and tasks", pp.81~112 (2012), CALICO
  5. Cotos, E., "Automated writing analysis for writing pedagogy: From healthy tension to tangible prospects", Writing & Pedagogy, 7(2-3), pp.197~231 (2015)
  6. Dikli, S., "The nature of automated essay scoring feedback", CALICO Journal, 28(1), pp.99~134 (2010)
  7. Dikli, S., "Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers : How does it compare to instructor feedback", Assessing Writing, 22, pp.1~17 (2014)
  8. Elliot, N., "Assessing Writing special issue : Assessing writing with automated scoring systems", Assessing Writing, 18(1), pp.1~6 (2013)
  9. Engelhard G., "Large-scale assessment programs for all students: Validity, technical adequacy, and implementation", pp.261~287 (2002), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  10. Franzke, M., "Summary Street® : Computer support for comprehension and writing", Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(1), pp.53~80 (2005)
  11. Ferris, D., "Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues", pp.81~104 (2006), Cambridge University Press
  12. Ferris, D., "Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA : Intersections and practical applications", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), pp.181~201 (2010)
  13. Ferris, D., "Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers", Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), pp.307~329 (2013)
  14. Fu, Q. K., "A review of AWE feedback: Types, learning outcomes, and implications", Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(1-2), pp.179~221 (2024)
  15. Graham, S., "Formative assessment and writing : A meta-analysis", Elementary School Journal, 115, pp.523~547 (2015)
  16. Hartshorn, K. J., "Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy", TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), pp.84~109 (2010)
  17. Hockly, N., "Automated writing evaluation", ELT Journal, 73(1), pp.82~88 (2019)
  18. Hwang, M., "Validation study of automated essay scoring system applicable to English writing class", English Language Teaching, 27(3), pp.261~283 (2015)
  19. Hyland, K., "Feedback on second language students’ writing", Language Teaching, 39(2), pp.83~101 (2006)
  20. Kellogg, R. T., "Does automated feedback help students learn to write?", Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(2), pp.73~196 (2010)
  21. Kim, Y., "Examining teachers’ perceptions of English writing instruction and assessment in preparation for the National English Ability Test(NEAT)", Studies in British and American Language and Literature, 107, pp.185~211 (2013)
  22. Kim, J., "Comparison between the effects of automated essay scoring and teacher feedback on students’ revision", master, pp.2021
  23. Li, J., "Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation(AWE)feedback in ESL writing instruction", Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, pp.1~18 (2015)
  24. Liao, H. C., "Enhancing the grammatical accuracy of EFL writing by using an AWE-assisted process approach", System, 62, pp.77~92 (2016)
  25. Link, S., "Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement", Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), pp.605~634 (2022)
  26. Morphy, P., "Word processing programs and weaker writers", readers : A meta-analysis of research findings, 2012, pp.25, 641~678
  27. Rosenthal, R., "The handbook of research synthesis", pp.231~244 (1994), Russell Sage Foundation
  28. Robb, T., "Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality", TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), pp.83~96 (1986)
  29. Shermis, M. D., "Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions" (2013), Routledge
  30. Stevenson, M., "A critical interpretative synthesis : The integration of automated writing evaluation into classroom writing instruction", Computers and Composition, 42, pp.1~16 (2016)
  31. Swain, M., "Input in second language acquisition", pp.235~256 (1985), Newbury House
  32. Truscott, J., "The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes", Language Learning, 46(2), pp.327~369 (1996)
  33. Truscott, J., "The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately", Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), pp.255~272 (2007)
  34. Truscott, J., "Error correction, revision, and learning", Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), pp.292~305 (2008)
  35. Van Beuningen, C. G., "Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing", Language Learning, 62(1), pp.1~41 (2012)
  36. Wade-Stein, D., "Summary street : Interactive computer support for writing", Cognition and Instruction, 22, pp.333~362 (2004)
  37. Wang, P. L., "Effects of an automated writing evaluation program : Student experiences and perceptions", Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 12(1), pp.79~100 (2015)
  38. Ware, P., "Feedback for adolescent writers in the English classroom", Writing & Pedagogy, 6(2), pp.223~250 (2014)
  39. Warschauer, M., "Invited commentary : New tools for teaching writing", Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), pp.3~8 (2010)
  40. Warschauer, M., "Automated writing assessment in the classroom", Pedagogies : An International Journal, 3(1), pp.22~36 (2008)
  41. Warschauer, M., "Automated writing evaluation : Defining the classroom research agenda", Language Teaching Research, 10(2), pp.157~180 (2006)
  42. Weigle, S. C., "Assessing writing" (2002), Cambridge University Press
  43. Weigle, S.C., "English language learners and automated scoring of essays : Critical considerations", Assessing Writing, 18(1), pp.85~99 (2013)
  44. Wilson, J., "Does automated feedback improve writing quality?", Learning Disabilities : A Contemporary Journal, 12(1), pp.93~118 (2014)
  45. Wilson, J., "Automated essay evaluation software in English Language Arts classrooms : Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality", Computers & Education, 100, pp.94~109 (2016)
  46. Zhang, L. J., "Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance : A mixed-methods study", Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 54, pp.101043~ (2021)

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (16건)

The Effectiveness of AI-Assisted Language Learning: Possibilities of Facilitating the Intelligibility of Korean-Accented EnglishHyun Kyung Miki Bong, 정보현pp. 520-535A Case Study of Three Korean Elementary School Students’ English Reading Experiences Assisted by Hyperlinked Resources소영순, Jiyoon Seongpp. 536-552The Relationship between Chinese Undergraduate EFL Learners’ Perceived Teacher Support and Learning EngagementTianhao Lipp. 570-585Exploring the Complex Associations among Language Proficiency, Aptitude, Cognitive Style, Vocabulary Learning Strategies, and Vocabulary KnowledgeMiki Satoripp. 586-599Repetition Fosters the Effect of Shadowing on L2 Listening Skills: Seeking an Enhanced ProcedureHashizaki Ryotaropp. 600-617
원문 보기