Advertisement

EFL Writing Assessment: Peer Assessment vs. Automated Essay Scoring

  • Meixiu Lu
  • Qing Deng
  • Manzhen YangEmail author
Conference paper
  • 24 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11984)

Abstract

This study aimed to explore problems and potentials of new technologies in English as foreign language (EFL) writing education. Forty-six students as a foreign language (EFL) learners in a Chinese university participated in this study. They submitted their draft to Pigai Network and Scholar Network separately and received automated essay scoring (AES) and peer assessment (PA) feedback. Results showed a moderate, positive partial correlation between PA and AES, controlling for performance level. The EFL learners in China preferred AES over PA. These findings raise several relevant issues in how to improve peer assessment feedback effectively, such as writing rubric in peer assessment, specialized peer assessment tool, technology assistant and peer feedback.

Keywords

Peer assessment Automated essay scoring English as foreign language 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express sincerely acknowledgements:

I am grateful to Professor Ming Ming Chiu for his constructive comments on drafting and revising this paper.

Funding

This work was supported by [Teaching Quality and Teaching Reform Project in Guangdong Province] under Grant [number 236: No. 201, No. 218]; [Guangdong Provincial Philosophy and Social Sciences Project] under Grant [number GD18WXZ18]; and [The Ministry of Education’s Higher Education Department, the second batch of industry-university collaborative education project] under Grant [number 201802083033]; [Guangdong University of Foreign Studies Postgraduate International Talents Training Innovation Project].

References

  1. 1.
    Berg, E.C.: The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. J. Second Lang. Writ. 8(3), 215–241 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yang, M., Badger, R., Yu, Z.: A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. J. Second Lang. Writ. 15(3), 179–200 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Attali, Y., Burstein, J.: Automated essay scoring with e-rater®; V.2.0. J. Technol. Learn. Assess. 4(2), i–21 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dikli, S.: Automated essay scoring. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 7(1), 735–738 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deane, P.: On the relation between automated-essay scoring and modern views of the writing construct. Assessing Writ. 18(1), 7–24 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sommers, N.: Responding to student writing. Coll. Compos. Commun. 33(2), 148–156 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang, C.-C., et al.: Reliability and validity of web-based portfolio peer assessment: a case study for a senior high school’s students taking computer course.”. Comput. Educ. 57(1), 1306–1316 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang, C.-C., Yan, C.-F., Tseng, J.-S.: Perceived convenience in an extended technology acceptance model: mobile technology and English learning for college students. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 28(5), 809–826 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Topping, K.J.: Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment. Learn. Instr. 20(4), 339–343 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Falchikov, N.: Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self-assessments. Assess. Eval. High. Educ, 11(2), 146–166 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Falchikov, N., Goldfinch, J.: Student peer assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Rev. Educ. Res. 70(3), 287–322 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Topping, K.: Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Rev. Educ. Res. 68(3), 249–276 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meek, S.E.M., Blakemore, L., Marks, L.: Is peer review an appropriate form of assessment in a MOOC? Student participation and performance in formative peer review. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 42(6), 1000–1013 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O.E., Zacharia, Z.C.: Peer versus expert feedback: an investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Comput. Educ. 71, 133–152 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsai, C.-C., Lin, S.S.J., Yuan, S.-M.: Developing science activities through a networked peer assessment system. Comput. Educ. 38(1–3), 241–252 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hanrahan, S.J., Isaacs, G.: Assessing self-and peer-assessment: the students’ views. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 20(1), 53–70 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fang, Y.: Perceptions of the computer-assisted writing program among EFL college learners. Educ. Technol. Soc. 13(3), 246–256 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Enright, M.K., Quinlan, T.: Complementing human judgment of essays written by English language learners with e-rater® scoring. Lang. Test. 27(3), 317–334 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen, C.-F.E., Cheng, W.-Y.E.C.: Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Lang. Learn. Technol. 12(2), 94–112 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang, Y.-J., Shang, H.-F., Briody, P.: Exploring the impact of using automated writing evaluation in English as a foreign language university students’ writing. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 26(3), 234–257 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roscoe, R.D., et al.: Presentation, expectations, and experience: Sources of student perceptions of automated writing evaluation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 70, 207–221 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lai, Y.-h.: Which do students prefer to evaluate their essays: peers or computer program. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 41(3), 432–454 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jones, I., Wheadon, C.: Peer assessment using comparative and absolute judgement. Stud. Educ. Eval. 47, 93–101 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yu, F.-Y., Wu, C.-P.: Different identity revelation modes in an online peer-assessment learning environment: effects on perceptions toward assessors, classroom climate and learning activities. Comput. Educ. 57(3), 2167–2177 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hoon, T.: Online automated essay assessment: potentials for writing development (2010). Accessed 9 August 2006Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yeh, Y.-L., Liou, H.-C., Yu, Y.-T.: The influence of automatic essay evaluation and bilingual concordancing on EFL students. English Teach. Learn. 31(1), 117–160 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eastern Language Processing Center, School of Information Science and Technology, School of Cyber SecurityGuangdong University of Foreign StudiesGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Guangdong University of TechnologyGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.School of English and EducationGuangdong University of Foreign StudiesGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations