Engaging with automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback on L2 writing: Student perceptions and revisions

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. 100439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhe (Victor) Zhang
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
John Gibbons ◽  
Mimi Li

Abstract This paper reviews 20 representative Ph.D. dissertations on second language (L2) writing and technology completed in the USA over the past decade (2010–2019). These dissertations were selected using advanced search via ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Five thematic categories were examined: (1) computer-mediated teacher/peer feedback; (2) automated writing evaluation; (3) computer-based collaborative writing; (4) technology-based writing instruction/assessment; and (5) digital composing/literacy. Each dissertation study was closely reviewed, with the presentation of illustrative tables. After analyzing and discussing the research designs, findings, and contributions of these studies, the authors identified the research trend and highlighted directions for future dissertation research in the field of L2 writing and technology.


2017 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. 207-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rod D. Roscoe ◽  
Joshua Wilson ◽  
Adam C. Johnson ◽  
Christopher R. Mayra

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
Meilisa Sindy Astika Ariyanto ◽  
Nur Mukminatien ◽  
Sintha Tresnadewi

Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) programs have emerged as the latest trend in EFL writing classes. AWE programs act as a supplementary to teacher feedback and offer automated suggestions and corrections to students' linguistic errors such as grammar, vocabulary, or mechanics. As there is a need for better recognition of different AWE brands utilized for different levels of students, this research sheds light on identifying six university students’ views of an AWE program, namely ProWritingAid (PWA). The six students are categorized as having high or low writing achievement. This descriptive study delineates the students’ perceptions qualitatively. A semi-structured interview was used to collect the data. The findings suggest the students’ positive views of PWA because it could make class time more effective; it had useful feedback on grammar, vocabulary choices, and mechanics; and it built students‘ self-confidence over their compositions. In addition, for different reasons, the students engaged differently with PWA to enhance their drafts, e.g. using PWA only for the first drafts or for the first and final drafts. Finally, despite of the students’ constructive views on PWA, there was a risk that students only engaged superficially with the program by hitting the correction directly.


2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 385-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol A. Chapelle ◽  
Elena Cotos ◽  
Jooyoung Lee

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document