Still a Fallible Tool? Revisiting Effects of Automated Writing Evaluation from Activity Theory Perspective

Autor/in	Li, Rui
Titel	Still a Fallible Tool? Revisiting Effects of Automated Writing Evaluation from Activity Theory Perspective
Quelle	In: British Journal of Educational Technology, 54 (2023) 3, S.773-789 (17 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Li, Rui)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0007-1013
DOI	10.1111/bjet.13294
Schlagwörter	Writing Evaluation; Writing Tests; Automation; Writing Skills; Skill Development; Effect Size; Writing Instruction; Instructional Effectiveness; Man Machine Systems; Feedback (Response); Writing Assignments + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Writing test; Schreibtest; Writing skill; Schreibfertigkeit; Kompetenzentwicklung; Qualifikationsentwicklung; Schreibunterricht; Unterrichtserfolg; Mensch-Maschine-System
Abstract	Despite the popularity of automated writing evaluation (AWE) that has provoked an increased scholarly interest, synthesized research to comprehensively understand its pedagogical effects is still in paucity. To fill the gap, this study aims to meta-analyse the overall effect of AWE on learners' writing skill development and whether the effect differs from how it has been used. From activity theory (AT) perspective, this study reported results based on a meta-analysis of 33 valid effect sizes involving 2995 participants from 25 experimental and quasi-experimental studies published during 2000-22. The results of the study showed that the overall effect was g = 0.429, 95% CI [0.266, 0.592], suggesting that AWE for writing skill development is more effective than traditional methods, such as traditional classroom interaction, teacher-led interaction and peer interaction. Regarding AT-related moderators for the overall effect, different moderator effects of educational levels, proficiency levels, sample size types, target language types, intervention durations, text genre types, human-computer interaction types, feedback types and program types were reported. Informed by the results obtained, this study also provided some insights into the pedagogical implications for practice. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01