In the face of fallible AWE feedback: how do students respond?

References

• Attali, Y. (2004, April). Exploring the feedback and revision features of criterion. Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Attar, E. M., & Allami, H. (2013). The effects of teaching lexical collocations on speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3, 1070–1079.
   Google Scholar
• Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54, 153–160.10.1093/elt/54.2.153
   Google Scholar
• Bahns, J. (1993). Lexical collocations: A contrastive view. ELT Journal, 47, 56–63.10.1093/elt/47.1.56
   Google Scholar
• Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. (2009). The BBI combinatory dictionary of English: Your guide to collocations and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brashi, A. (2009). Collocability as a problem in L2 production. Reflection on English Language Teaching, 8, 21–34.
   Google Scholar
• Brent, E., & Townsend, M. (2006). Automated essay grading in the sociology classroom: Finding common ground. In P. F. Ericsson & R. Haswell (Eds.), Machine scoring of student essays: Truth and consequences (pp. 177–198). Logan: Utah State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burstein, J., & Chodorow, M. (1999). Automated essay scoring for nonnative English speakers. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/erater_acl99rev.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Burstein, J., Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C. (2003). CriterionSM online essay evaluation: An application for automated evaluation of student essays. In J. Riedl & R. Hill (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 3–10). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chapelle, C. A., Cotos, E., & Lee, J. (2015). Validity arguments for diagnostic assessment using automated writing evaluation. Language Testing, 32, 385–405.10.1177/0265532214565386
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, J. F. (1997). Computer generated error feedback and writing process: A link. TESL-EJ, 2. Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej07/a1.html
   Google Scholar
• Chen, C. F. E., & Cheng, W. Y. E. (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 94–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chodorow, M., Gamon, M., & Tetreault, J. (2010). The utility of article and preposition error correction systems for English language learners: Feedback and assessment. Language Testing, 27, 419–436.10.1177/0265532210364391
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dikli, S. (2010). The nature of automated essay scoring feedback. CALICO Journal, 28, 99–134.10.11139/cj.28.1
   Google Scholar
• Dikli, S., & Bleyle, S. (2014). Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback? Assessing Writing, 22, 1–17.10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400–414.10.2307/356602
   Google Scholar
• Farghal, M., & Obiedat, H. (1995). Collocations: A neglected variable in EFL. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 33, 315–531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics with SPSS (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Foltz, P. W., & Rosenstein, M. (2013, December). Tracking student learning in a state-wide implementation of automated writing scoring. Paper presented at the NIPS Workshop on Data Driven Education, Lake Tahoe, Nevada. Retrieved from http://www.apparent-wind.com/mbr/papers/nips2-13-workshop-foltz-Final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38, 305–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. The Journal of Technology, Language, and Assessment, 8. Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/download/1625/1469
   Google Scholar
• Han, N.-R., Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C. (2006). Detecting errors in English article usage by non-native speakers. Natural Language Engineering, 12, 115–129.10.1017/S1351324906004190
   Google Scholar
• Herrington, A., & Moran, C. (2012). Writing to a machine is not writing at all. In N. Elliot & L. Perelman (Eds.), Writing assessment in the 21st century: Essays in honor of Edward M. White (pp. 219–232). New York, NY: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, G. (2007). Developing an EAP writing course for Chinese ESL students. RELC Journal, 38, 67–86.
   Google Scholar
• Klobucar, A., Elliot, N., Deess, P., Rudniy, O., & Joshi, K. (2013). Automated scoring in context: Rapid assessment for placed students. Assessing Writing, 18, 62–84.10.1016/j.asw.2012.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai, Y. H. (2010). Which do students prefer to evaluate their essays: Peers or computer program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 432–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavolette, E., Polio, C., & Kahng, J. (2015). The accuracy of computer-assisted feedback and students’ responses to it. Language Learning & Technology, 19, 50–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, S., & Kunnan, A. J. (2016). Investigating the application of automated writing evaluation to Chinese undergraduate English majors: A case study of WriteToLearn. CALICO Journal, 33, 71–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, D., & Zhong, S. (2016). L2 vs. L1 use of synonymy: An empirical study of synonym use/acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 37, 239–261.10.1093/applin/amu022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombard, R. J. (1997). Nonnative speaker collocation: A corpus-driven characterization from the writing of native speakers of Mandarin (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arlington: University of Texas at Arlington.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, M. (1984). Advanced vocabulary teaching: The problem of synonyms. The Modern Language Journal, 68, 130–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24, 223–242.10.1093/applin/24.2.223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nesselhauf, N. (2004). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Phoocharoensil, S. (2011). Collocational errors in EFL learners’ interlanguage. Journal of Education and Practice, 2, 103–120.
   Google Scholar
• Ramineni, C. (2013). Validating automated essay scoring for online writing placement. Assessing Writing, 18, 40–61.10.1016/j.asw.2012.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ranalli, J., Link, S., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (in press). Automated writing evaluation for formative assessment of second language writing: Investigating the accuracy and usefulness of feedback as part of argument-based validation. Educational Psychology. doi:10.1080/01443410.2015.1136407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rich, C. S. (2012). The impact of online automated writing evaluation: A case study from Dalian. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35, 83–99.
   Google Scholar
• Rudner, L. M., Garcia, V., & Welch, C. (2006). An evaluation of IntelliMetric™ essay scoring system. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 4(4). Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/download/1651/1493
   Google Scholar
• Sasano, R., Kawahara, D., & Kurohashi, S. (2009, May). The effect of corpus size on case frame acquisition for discourse analysis. Paper presented at the 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Boulder, Colorado. Retrieved from http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/N09-1059
   Google Scholar
• Shermis, M. D., Burstein, J., & Bliss, L. (2004, April). The impact of automated essay scoring on high stakes writing assessments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, California.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus concordance collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 51–65.10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetreault, J. R., & Chodorow, M. (2008). The ups and downs of preposition error detection in ESL writing. In D. Scott & H. Uszkoreit (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 865–872). Manchester: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Warden, C. A. (2000). EFL business writing behaviors in differing feedback environments. Language Learning, 50, 573–616.10.1111/lang.2000.50.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warschauer, M., & Ware, J. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10, 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weigle, S. C. (2013). English as a second language writing and automated essay evaluation. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions (pp. 36–54). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• White, E. M. (1994). Teaching and assessing writing: Recent advances in understanding, evaluating, and improving student performance (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeh, Y., Liou, H., & Li, Y. (2007). Online synonym materials and concordancing for EFL college writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 131–152.10.1080/09588220701331451
   Google Scholar