The Impact of Using Automated Writing Feedback in ESL/EFL Classroom Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is undeniable that attempts to develop automated feedback systems that support and enhance language learning and assessment have increased in the last few years. The growing demand for using technology in the classroom and the promotions provided by automated- written-feedback program developers and designers, drive many educational institutions to acquire and use these tools for educational purposes (Chen & Cheng, 2008). It remains debatable, however, whether students’ use of these tools leads to improvement in their essay quality or writing outcomes. In this paper I investigate the affordances and shortcomings of automated writing evaluation (AWE) on students’ writing in ESL/EFL contexts. My discussion shows that AWE can improve the quality of writing and learning outcomes if it is integrated with and supported by human feedback. I provide recommendations for further research into improving AWE tools to give more effective and constructive feedback.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".