| Sumario: | Considering the prominence attached to written corrective feedback (WCF) within the domain of second/foreign language (L2) acquisition, automated writing evaluation (AWE) tools have steadily gained ground over the last two decades. The current study was an attempt to investigate the extent incorporating an AWE program, known as Criterion®, within a process writing framework would affect learners' writing quality in an English as a foreign language context. Moreover, we drew a comparison between the overall effects of computer‐ versus teacher‐generated WCF. Participants consisted of 53 tertiary level students from two intact essay‐writing classes. The within‐group findings revealed that the experimental group's writing scores rose significantly from the pretest to posttest after receiving automated WCF over several weeks. Significant progress was also noticed on all rounds of scores obtained from five essays assigned to this group except between the first and the second. As for the comparison between computer‐ and teacher‐administered WCF, the former condition was found to be more efficient. Overall, the findings provide a deeper insight into the workings of an automated evaluation tool and how it was employed in the L2 classroom to impart consistency to the assessment procedure and ease the burden traditionally placed upon teachers. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic?: Provision of written corrective feedback (WCF) to second/foreign language learners' essays has traditionally been an arduous task for teachers.Several educational bodies worldwide have endeavored to offer a solution to this longstanding issue through adapting computers.One such automated writing evaluation (AWE) tools developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) is known as Criterion®.Criterion is a sophisticated web‐based system which supplies individualized diagnostic feedback and holistic score reporting, thus helping learners plan, write, and revise their essays commensurate with the CF in a self‐regulated environment.More recently, the impact of automated WCF versus teacher‐administered WCF has attracted L2 researchers worldwide. The central concern of these studies, however, has been to assess the type and quality of the CF. What this paper adds?: Unlike many commercially‐motivated studies on AWE tools, this empirical study was conducted at the classroom level to probe the diagnostic merits of Criterion's feedback.The affordances of Criterion within a process writing perspective were tapped.Within the Iranian context, where traditional and product‐oriented techniques of writing instruction prevail in most schools and universities, no substantive studies had empirically examined the efficacy of an AWE program for writing development.This study used an analytic essay scoring scale to avoid the potential bias of assessing written products through holistic scores.Also, the current study examined teacher‐generated and computer‐generated feedback in terms of their overall impact on writing quality. Implications for practice and/or policy: Writing scores of the automated CF group improved from pretest to posttest, following the implementation of Criterion.Improvements in writing quality were also discerned along the five essays assigned to the automated CF group between the pre‐ and the posttest.The analytic scoring provided more detailed information about the learners' writing ability which could be of use for further research.Criterion may be used in the L2 writing classroom as a highly reliable complement to teacher‐administered CF.The AWE tool helps impart consistency to the assessment procedure and ease the burden traditionally placed upon teachers.
|
|---|