Automated Essay Evaluation for English Language Learners:A Case Study of MY Access
Abstract
Computer technology made its way into writing instruction and assessment with spelling and grammar checkers decades ago, but more recently it has done so with automated essay evaluation (AEE) and diagnostic feedback. And although many programs and tools have been developed in the last decade, not enough research has been conducted to support or evaluate the claims of the developers. This study examined the effectiveness of automated writing instructional programs in consistent scoring of essays and appropriate feedback to student writers. It examined the scoring and instructional program called MY Access! Home Edition, which has an error feedback tool called My Editor to address these issues. The study combined a quantitative study of agreement and correlational analyses with an analysis of content and topic. Participants included 114 English language learners who wrote 147 essays to three writing prompts, which were graded by trained EFL raters and MY Access. From the sample, 15 randomly selected essays were also used for an error analysis comparing My Editor with human annotations to examine My Editor’s accuracy. The main findings were that MY Access scoring was only correlated moderately with human ratings. Furthermore, because MY Access scoring is limited to the recognition of content words, not how these words are organized at the discourse level, it did not detect slightly off-topic essays and plagiarism. Finally, My Editor’s error feedback, with 73% precision and 30% r…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Hoang and Kunnan (2016) suggest a combined pedagogy in which the writing instructor acts as an intermediary between the students' work and the feedback.
“To counteract these issues and render automated feedback useful, Hoang and Kunnan (2016) suggest a combined pedagogy in which the writing instructor acts as an intermediary between the students' work and the feedback.”
From Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly (2019) · cites this paper as Hoang & Kunnan, 2016
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly
ONeill, R., & Russell, A. (2019) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.3795 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Exploring the Feedback Quality of an Automated Writing Evaluation System Pigai
Gao, J. (2021) · International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) · doi:10.3991/ijet.v16i11.19657 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Yousofi, R. (2022) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2022.2142446 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hoang, G. T. L., & Kunnan, A. J.
- Affiliations
- Hue University (VN)
- University of Macau (MO)
- Corresponding author
- Hoang, Giang Thi Linh
- Venue
- Language Assessment Quarterly
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-09-15
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 359-376
- ISSN
- 1543-4303 (ISSN-L)
- 1543-4311
- OpenAlex
- W2520297071
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 12.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language Assessment Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
- Keywords
- automated essay evaluation, English language learners, error feedback, essay scoring, human-rater agreement, plagiarism detection, writing instruction, EFL writing assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review