Automated Versus Human Essay Scoring: A Comparative Study
This study investigated the effects of automated essay scoring (AES) system on writing improvement of Iranian L2 learners. About 60 Iranian intermediate EFL learners were selected on a Standard English proficiency test (Allen 2004). Afterwards, they were randomly assigned to two groups of 30, experi...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Theory and practice in language studies 2012-04, Vol.2 (4), p.719 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 719 |
| container_title | Theory and practice in language studies |
| container_volume | 2 |
| creator | Toranj, Somaye Ansari, Dariush Nejad |
| description | This study investigated the effects of automated essay scoring (AES) system on writing improvement of Iranian L2 learners. About 60 Iranian intermediate EFL learners were selected on a Standard English proficiency test (Allen 2004). Afterwards, they were randomly assigned to two groups of 30, experimental and control group. Participants in experimental group received the AES scoring, and control group, received the human scoring. Statistical analyses of the results reveal that 1) AES tool results in significant improvement of L2 learners writing achievement, 2) Results from questionnaire show that Students ware favor about using AES tool, 3) The results from the current study support the conclusion that the AES tool does not seem to correlate well with human raters in scoring essays. Hence, the findings of this study indicate that using AES tools can help teachers ease their big teaching students to improve their writing and it can be used as an educational tool on classrooms. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] |
| doi_str_mv | 10.4304/tpls.2.4.719-725 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1328998465</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2948919011</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2285-d596788bc132fe4349cdda088f67b8d69135620cd7ecbde15a72e506481a0fb53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkEtLw0AAhBdRsNTePS54Ttz3w1sJ1QoFD1Wvy2Z3IynNw91EyL83oZ3LXIZv4APgEaOcUcSeh_6ccpKzXGKdScJvwIogTjMkNLkFKyy1zgjX-B5sUjqhOYJjwtkK6O04dI0dgoffIaYxwf3Y2BbuUrITPLou1u3PC9zComt6G-1Q_wV4HEY_PYC7yp5T2Fx7Db5ed5_FPjt8vL0X20PmCFE881wLqVTpMCVVYJRp571FSlVClsoLjSkXBDkvgyt9wNxKEjgSTGGLqpLTNXi6cPvY_Y4hDebUjbGdL82MVForJpYVuqxc7FKKoTJ9rBsbJ4ORWRyZxZEhhpnZkZkd0X-9Nlk9</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1328998465</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Automated Versus Human Essay Scoring: A Comparative Study</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Toranj, Somaye ; Ansari, Dariush Nejad</creator><creatorcontrib>Toranj, Somaye ; Ansari, Dariush Nejad</creatorcontrib><description>This study investigated the effects of automated essay scoring (AES) system on writing improvement of Iranian L2 learners. About 60 Iranian intermediate EFL learners were selected on a Standard English proficiency test (Allen 2004). Afterwards, they were randomly assigned to two groups of 30, experimental and control group. Participants in experimental group received the AES scoring, and control group, received the human scoring. Statistical analyses of the results reveal that 1) AES tool results in significant improvement of L2 learners writing achievement, 2) Results from questionnaire show that Students ware favor about using AES tool, 3) The results from the current study support the conclusion that the AES tool does not seem to correlate well with human raters in scoring essays. Hence, the findings of this study indicate that using AES tools can help teachers ease their big teaching students to improve their writing and it can be used as an educational tool on classrooms. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><identifier>ISSN: 1799-2591</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2053-0692</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4304/tpls.2.4.719-725</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Academy Publication Co., Ltd</publisher><subject>Computers ; Control Groups ; Educational evaluation ; Educational technology ; Educational Testing ; English as a second language instruction ; English as a second language tests ; English proficiency ; Essay Tests ; Essays ; Feedback ; Learning ; Questionnaires ; R&D ; Research & development ; Scoring ; Second language teachers ; Second language writing ; Student writing ; Studies ; Teaching ; Writing Evaluation ; Writing instruction ; Writing Tests</subject><ispartof>Theory and practice in language studies, 2012-04, Vol.2 (4), p.719</ispartof><rights>Copyright Academy Publisher Apr 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2285-d596788bc132fe4349cdda088f67b8d69135620cd7ecbde15a72e506481a0fb53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2285-d596788bc132fe4349cdda088f67b8d69135620cd7ecbde15a72e506481a0fb53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Toranj, Somaye</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ansari, Dariush Nejad</creatorcontrib><title>Automated Versus Human Essay Scoring: A Comparative Study</title><title>Theory and practice in language studies</title><description>This study investigated the effects of automated essay scoring (AES) system on writing improvement of Iranian L2 learners. About 60 Iranian intermediate EFL learners were selected on a Standard English proficiency test (Allen 2004). Afterwards, they were randomly assigned to two groups of 30, experimental and control group. Participants in experimental group received the AES scoring, and control group, received the human scoring. Statistical analyses of the results reveal that 1) AES tool results in significant improvement of L2 learners writing achievement, 2) Results from questionnaire show that Students ware favor about using AES tool, 3) The results from the current study support the conclusion that the AES tool does not seem to correlate well with human raters in scoring essays. Hence, the findings of this study indicate that using AES tools can help teachers ease their big teaching students to improve their writing and it can be used as an educational tool on classrooms. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><subject>Computers</subject><subject>Control Groups</subject><subject>Educational evaluation</subject><subject>Educational technology</subject><subject>Educational Testing</subject><subject>English as a second language instruction</subject><subject>English as a second language tests</subject><subject>English proficiency</subject><subject>Essay Tests</subject><subject>Essays</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>R&D</subject><subject>Research & development</subject><subject>Scoring</subject><subject>Second language teachers</subject><subject>Second language writing</subject><subject>Student writing</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Teaching</subject><subject>Writing Evaluation</subject><subject>Writing instruction</subject><subject>Writing Tests</subject><issn>1799-2591</issn><issn>2053-0692</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><sourceid>PAF</sourceid><sourceid>PQLNA</sourceid><sourceid>PROLI</sourceid><recordid>eNotkEtLw0AAhBdRsNTePS54Ttz3w1sJ1QoFD1Wvy2Z3IynNw91EyL83oZ3LXIZv4APgEaOcUcSeh_6ccpKzXGKdScJvwIogTjMkNLkFKyy1zgjX-B5sUjqhOYJjwtkK6O04dI0dgoffIaYxwf3Y2BbuUrITPLou1u3PC9zComt6G-1Q_wV4HEY_PYC7yp5T2Fx7Db5ed5_FPjt8vL0X20PmCFE881wLqVTpMCVVYJRp571FSlVClsoLjSkXBDkvgyt9wNxKEjgSTGGLqpLTNXi6cPvY_Y4hDebUjbGdL82MVForJpYVuqxc7FKKoTJ9rBsbJ4ORWRyZxZEhhpnZkZkd0X-9Nlk9</recordid><startdate>20120401</startdate><enddate>20120401</enddate><creator>Toranj, Somaye</creator><creator>Ansari, Dariush Nejad</creator><general>Academy Publication Co., Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>CLO</scope><scope>CPGLG</scope><scope>CRLPW</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PAF</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PMKZF</scope><scope>PPXUT</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQLNA</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PROLI</scope><scope>PRQQA</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120401</creationdate><title>Automated Versus Human Essay Scoring: A Comparative Study</title><author>Toranj, Somaye ; Ansari, Dariush Nejad</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2285-d596788bc132fe4349cdda088f67b8d69135620cd7ecbde15a72e506481a0fb53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Computers</topic><topic>Control Groups</topic><topic>Educational evaluation</topic><topic>Educational technology</topic><topic>Educational Testing</topic><topic>English as a second language instruction</topic><topic>English as a second language tests</topic><topic>English proficiency</topic><topic>Essay Tests</topic><topic>Essays</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>R&D</topic><topic>Research & development</topic><topic>Scoring</topic><topic>Second language teachers</topic><topic>Second language writing</topic><topic>Student writing</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Teaching</topic><topic>Writing Evaluation</topic><topic>Writing instruction</topic><topic>Writing Tests</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Toranj, Somaye</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ansari, Dariush Nejad</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Literature Online Core (LION Core) (legacy)</collection><collection>Linguistics Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Learning: Literature</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Digital Collections</collection><collection>Literature Online Premium (LION Premium) (legacy)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>Literature Online (LION) - US Customers Only</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Literature Online (LION)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Theory and practice in language studies</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Toranj, Somaye</au><au>Ansari, Dariush Nejad</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Automated Versus Human Essay Scoring: A Comparative Study</atitle><jtitle>Theory and practice in language studies</jtitle><date>2012-04-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>2</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>719</spage><pages>719-</pages><issn>1799-2591</issn><eissn>2053-0692</eissn><abstract>This study investigated the effects of automated essay scoring (AES) system on writing improvement of Iranian L2 learners. About 60 Iranian intermediate EFL learners were selected on a Standard English proficiency test (Allen 2004). Afterwards, they were randomly assigned to two groups of 30, experimental and control group. Participants in experimental group received the AES scoring, and control group, received the human scoring. Statistical analyses of the results reveal that 1) AES tool results in significant improvement of L2 learners writing achievement, 2) Results from questionnaire show that Students ware favor about using AES tool, 3) The results from the current study support the conclusion that the AES tool does not seem to correlate well with human raters in scoring essays. Hence, the findings of this study indicate that using AES tools can help teachers ease their big teaching students to improve their writing and it can be used as an educational tool on classrooms. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Academy Publication Co., Ltd</pub><doi>10.4304/tpls.2.4.719-725</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1799-2591 |
| ispartof | Theory and practice in language studies, 2012-04, Vol.2 (4), p.719 |
| issn | 1799-2591 2053-0692 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1328998465 |
| source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
| subjects | Computers Control Groups Educational evaluation Educational technology Educational Testing English as a second language instruction English as a second language tests English proficiency Essay Tests Essays Feedback Learning Questionnaires R&D Research & development Scoring Second language teachers Second language writing Student writing Studies Teaching Writing Evaluation Writing instruction Writing Tests |
| title | Automated Versus Human Essay Scoring: A Comparative Study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-16T07%3A00%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Automated%20Versus%20Human%20Essay%20Scoring:%20A%20Comparative%20Study&rft.jtitle=Theory%20and%20practice%20in%20language%20studies&rft.au=Toranj,%20Somaye&rft.date=2012-04-01&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=719&rft.pages=719-&rft.issn=1799-2591&rft.eissn=2053-0692&rft_id=info:doi/10.4304/tpls.2.4.719-725&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2948919011%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1328998465&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |