Abstract
Automatic Writing Evaluation (AWE) systems have emerged as a possible solution to give immediate feedback to writers. This chapter explores if the combination of AWE and teacher feedback, hybrid feedback, may support process-oriented writing by promoting assessment for learning (AfL) and assessment as learning (AaL). The current study explores if hybrid feedback resulted in differences in approaches to writing by comparing a class that received hybrid feedback and a class that received only teacher feedback in an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) writing classroom. This study is part of a more extensive study, and the chapter focuses on writing processes by examining students’ scores, the Writing Process Questionnaire, and selected individual case analyses. The findings suggest that the combination of feedback may help motivate students to revise and write more often and facilitate autonomous learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Graduate Record Examination (GRE) is a standardized test which is a requirement for many graduate schools in the US and Canada and the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) is a standardized test for many MBA programs. Both tests have an essay portion with similar evaluation criteria.
References
Attali, Y. (2004). Exploring the feedback and revision features of criterion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205.
Attali, Y., Lewis, W., & Steier, M. (2013). Scoring with the computer: Alternative procedures for improving the reliability of holistic essay scoring. Language Testing, 30, 125–141.
Bai, L., & Hu, G. (2017). In the face of fallible AWE feedback: How do students respond. Educational Psychology, 37(1), 67–81.
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters Limited.
Chan, S., Bax, S., & Weir, C. (2017). Researching participants taking IELTS Academic Writing Task 2 (AWT2) in paper mode and in computer mode in terms of score equivalence, cognitive validity and other factors. IELTS Research Reports Online Series, 47.
Chen, C. F. E., & Cheng, W. Y. E. C. (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 94–112.
Choi, I. C. (2008). The impact of EFL testing on EFL education in Korea. Language Testing, 25, 39–62.
Cross, R., & O’Loughlin, K. (2013). Continuous assessment frameworks within university English Pathway Programs: Realizing formative assessment within high-stakes contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 584–594.
Dann, R. (2002). Promoting assessment as learning: Improving the learning process. Routledge.
El Ebyary, K., & Windeatt, S. (2010). The impact of computer-based feedback on students’ written work. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 121–142.
Ericsson, P. F., & Haswell, R. (2006). Machine scoring of human essays: Truth and consequences. Utah State University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 8(6), 1–44.
Grimes, D. C. (2008). Middle school use of automated writing evaluation: A multi-site case study. University of California.
Herrington, A., & Moran, C. (2001). What happens when machines read our students’ writing. College English, 63(4), 480–499.
Jiang, L., & Yu, S. (2020). Appropriating automated feedback in L2 writing: Experiences of Chinese EFL student writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–25.
Kakkonen, T., Myller, N., & Sutinen, E. (2004). Semi-Automatic evaluation features in computer-assisted essay assessment. Cate, 456–461.
Lee, I. (2014). Revisiting teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 201–213.
Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer.
Li, Z., Link, S., Ma, H., Yang, H., & Hegelheimer, V. (2014). The role of automated writing evaluation holistic scores in the ESL classroom. System, 44, 66–78.
Lim, H., & Kahng, J. (2012). Review of Criterion. Language, Learning & Technology, 16(2), 38–45.
Link, S., Dursun, A., Karakaya, K., & Hegelheimer, V. (2014). Towards better ESL practices for implementing automated writing evaluation. Calico Journal, 31(3), 323–344.
Mohsen, M. A., & Alshahrani, A. (2019). The effectiveness of using a hybrid mode of automated writing evaluation system on EFL students’ writing. Teaching English with Technology, 19, 118–131.
Schroeder, J., Grohe, B., & Pogue, R. (2008). The impact of Criterion writing evaluation technology on criminal justice student writing skills. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19, 432–445.
Shermis, M. D., & Hamner, B. (2013). Contrasting state-of-the-art automated scoring of essays. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions (pp. 313–346). Routledge.
Shermis, M. D., Shneyderman, A., & Attali, Y. (2008). How important is content in the ratings of essay assessments? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15, 91–105.
Stevenson, M. (2016). A critical interpretative synthesis: The integration of automated writing evaluation into classroom writing instruction. Computers and Composition, 42, 1–16.
Wang, J., & Brown, M. S. (2008). Automated essay scoring versus human scoring: A correlational study. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 310–325.
Wang, P. (2015). Effects of an automated writing evaluation program: Student experiences and perceptions. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 12, 79–100.
Wang, P. L. (2013). Can automated writing evaluation programs help students improve their English writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(1), 6–12.
Warschauer, M. (2010). Invited commentary: New tools for teaching writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 3–8.
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2008). Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3(1), 22–36.
Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language teaching research, 10(2), 157–180.
Woodworth, J., & Barkaoui, K. (2020). Perspectives on using automated writing evaluation systems to provide written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. TESL Canada Journal, 37(2), 234–247.
Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102.
Zhu, M., Liu, O. L., & Lee, H.-S. (2020). The effect of automated feedback on revision behavior and learning gains in formative assessment of scientific argument writing. Computers & Education, 143, 1–15.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Woodworth, J. (2023). Product to Process: The Efficacy of Hybrid Feedback in Academic Writing Classrooms for Fostering Process-Oriented Writing. In: Chong, S.W., Reinders, H. (eds) Innovation in Learning-Oriented Language Assessment. New Language Learning and Teaching Environments. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18950-0_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18950-0_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-18949-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-18950-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)