The Nature of Automated Essay Scoring Feedback
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the nature of feedback that English as a Second Language (ESL) students received on their writings either from an automated essay scoring (AES) system or from the teacher. The participants were 12 adult ESL students who were attending an intensive English center at a university in Florida. The drafts of the students were analyzed in depth from a case-study perspective. While the document (essay) analysis was the main data collection method, observations and interviews provided crucial information regarding the context in which the students wrote and the nature of each type of feedback they received. The results revealed that the nature of the AES feedback and written teacher feedback (TF) feedback was different from each other. While the written TF was shorter and more focused, the AES feedback was quite long, generic, and redundant. The findings suggested that AES systems are not entirely ready to meet the needs of ESL or English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students. The developing companies need to improve the feedback capabilities of the program for nonnative English-speaking students, that is, less redundancy, shorter feedback, simpler language for feedback, and feedback for short/off topic/repetitious essays.
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?
Continuing issues persist in the quality of feedback provided by AES.
“Continuing issues persist, however, in the quality of feedback provided by AES (Dikli, 2010)”
From Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? (2019) · cites this paper as Dikli, 2010
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 · Cited by 7,242 · see citing works
“The purpose of the qualitative study, involving interviews with ESL students, was to explore the nature of written feedback coming from an automated essay scoring system compared to a human teacher (Dikli, 2010).”
BackgroundInfluentialLink, S., Mehrzad, M., & Rahimi, M. (2022) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323 · Cited by 275 · see citing works
Automated written corrective feedback: how well can students make use of it?
Ranalli, J. (2018) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
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
Palermo, C., & Thomson, M. M. (2018) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.07.002 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
The grass is not always greener: Teacher vs. GPT-assisted written corrective feedback
Lin, S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103529 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Towards Trustworthy AutoGrading of Short, Multi-lingual, Multi-type Answers
Schneider, J., Richner, R., & Riser, M. (2023) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-022-00289-z · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Yousofi, R. (2022) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2022.2142446 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dikli, S.
- Corresponding author
- Dikli, Semire
- Venue
- CALICO Journal
- Published
- 2011-01-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 99-134
- ISSN
- 0742-7778 (ISSN-L)
- 2056-9017
- OpenAlex
- W1983566062
- Cited by
- 52
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 7.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CALICO Journal (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 › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Keywords
- automated essay scoring, written corrective feedback, teacher feedback, ESL writing, English as a foreign language, computer-assisted language learning, feedback quality, non-native English speakers, intensive English programs
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