The Effect of Using Automated Essay Evaluation on ESL Undergraduate Students’ Writing Skill
Open accessAbstract
Advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have yielded significant advances in the language assessment field. The Automated Essay Evaluation (AEE) mechanism relies on basic research in computational linguistics focusing on transforming human language into algorithmic forms. The Criterion® system is an instance of AEE software providing both formative feedback and an automated holistic score. This paper aims to investigate the impact of this newly-developed AEE software in a current ESL setting by measuring the effectiveness of the Criterion® system in improving ESL undergraduate students’ writing performance. Data was collected from sixty-one ESL undergraduate students in an academic writing course in the English Language department at Princess Norah bint Abdulruhman University PNU. The researcher employed a repeated measure design study to test the potential effects of the formative feedback and automated holistic score on overall writing proficiency across time. Results indicated that the Criterion® system had a positive effect on the students’ cores on their writing tasks. However, results also suggested that students’ mechanics in writing significantly improved, while grammar, usage and style showed only moderate improvement. These findings are discussed in relation to AEE literature. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of implementing AEE software in educational contexts.
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?
A question was raised over the benefits of AES feedback for beginning language students (Aluthman, 2016).
“and a question was raised over the benefits of this feedback for beginning language students (Aluthman, 2016).”
From Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? (2019) · cites this paper as Aluthman, 2016
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · see citing works
Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010) · Phi Delta Kappan · doi:10.1177/003172171009200119 · Cited by 4,231 · see citing works
The impact of computer-based feedback on students' written work?
El Ebyary, K., & Windeatt, S. (2010) · International Journal of English Studies · doi:10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119231 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
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 quality of feedback provided by AES (Dikli, 2010), with Barker (2011) finding that the more detailed the feedback provided was, the more likely students were to question their grades, and a question was raised over the benefits of this feedback for beginning language students (Aluthman, 2016).”
BackgroundChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806 · see citing works
Ouyang, F., Zheng, L., & Jiao, P. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-10925-9 · Cited by 831 · see citing works
- Authors
- Aluthman, E. S.
- Affiliations
- Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University (SA)
- Corresponding author
- Aluthman, Ebtisam S.
- ORCID
- Aluthman, Ebtisam S.
- Venue
- International Journal of English Linguistics
- Published
- 2016-09-23
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 54
- ISSN
- 1923-869X (ISSN-L)
- 1923-8703
- OpenAlex
- W2523536876
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 6.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of English Linguistics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- 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 evaluation, academic writing, writing skills, formative feedback, automated grading, writing mechanics, grammar and usage, writing style
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