Experimental evidence on the effectiveness of automated essay scoring in teacher education cases

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 267-287

  Riedel, Eric ^a   Dexter, Sara L ^b   Scharber, Cassandra ^c   Doering, Aaron ^c  

^a WALDEN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547538881     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/U552-M54Q-5771-M677     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Beach, R. (1976). Self-evaluation strategies of extensive revisers and non-revisers. College and Communication, 27, 160-164.
2. Beach, R., & Friedrich, T. (2005). Response to writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
3. Burstein, J. (2003). The e-rater scoring engine: Automated essay scoring with natural language processing. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Burstein, J., Kukich, K., Wolff, S., Chi, L., & Chodorow, M. (1998). Enriching automated essay scoring using discourse marking. Proceedings of the Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Marking, Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Montreal, Canada.
5. Burstein, J., Leacock, C., Swartz, R. (2001). Automated evaluation of essay and short answers. In M. Danson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Computer Assisted Assessment Conference, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
6. Charman, D., & Elmes, A. (1998, November). A computer-based formative assessment strategy for a basic statistics module in geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 22(3), 381-385.
7. Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 257-276.
8. Danoff, B., Hams. K. R., & Graham, S. (1993). Incorporating strategy instruction within the writing process in the regular classroom: Effects on the writing of students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(3), 295-322.
9. Dexter, S. (2002). eTIPS - Educational technology integration and implementation principles. In P. Rodgers (Ed.), Designing instruction for technology-enhanced learning (pp. 56-70). New York: Idea Group Publishing.
10. Duke, B. L., & Miller, R. (2004, April). The influence of using cognitive strategy instruction through writing rubrics on high school students ' writing motivation and achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational. Research. Association, San Diego, CA.
11. Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
12. Ferris, D. (2001). Teaching writing for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Fleming, V. M., & Alexander, J. M. (2001). The benefits of peer collaboration: A replication with a delayed posttest. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 588-601.
15. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). Components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students' compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 353-361.
16. Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills/National Conference on Research in English.
17. Kim, L. (2004). Online technologies for teaching writing: Students react to teacher response in voice and written modalities. Research in the Teaching of English, 38(3), 304-337.
18. Land, R. E., Jr. & Evans, S. (1987, February). Classroom, inquiry: What our students taught us about paper marking. The English Journal, 76(2), 113-116.
19. Matsumura, L. C., Patthey-Chavez, G. G., Valdes, R., & Garnier, R. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and third-grade students' revision in lower- and higher-achieving urban schools. The Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 3-25.
20. Myers, M. (2003). What can computers and AES contribute to a K-12 writing program? In M. D. Shermis & J. C. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. National Writing Project. (2003). Because writing matters: Improving student writing in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22. Page, E. B. (1966). The imminence of grading essays by computer. Phi Delta Kappan, 48, 238-243.
23. Page, E. B. (1994). Computer grading of student prose, using modern concepts and software. Journal of Experimental Education, 62, 127-142.
24. Patthey-Chavez, G. B., Matsumura, L., & Valdes, R. (2004). Investigating the process approach to writing instruction in urban middle schools. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(6), 462-479.
25. Peat, M., & Franklin, S. (2002). Supporting student learning: The use of computer-based formative assessment modules. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 515-523.
26. Reed, W. M., Burton, J. K., & Kelly, P. P. (1985). The effects of writing ability and mode of discourse on cognitive capacity engagement. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 283-297.
27. Sambell, K., Sambell, A., & Sexton, G. (1999). Student perceptions of the learning benefits of computer-assisted assessment: A case study in electronic engineering. In S. Brown, P. Race, & J. Bull (Eds.), Computer-assisted assessment in higher education (pp. 179-191). London: Kogan Page Limited.
28. Scharber, C., & Dexter, S. (2004, March). Automated essay score predictions as a formative assessment tool. Paper presented at the fifteenth international conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Atlanta, GA.
29. Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. C. (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30. Shermis, M. D., Burstein, J., & Leacock, C. (2006). Applications of computers in assessment and analysis of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research. New York: Guilford Publications.
31. Sommers, J. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 148-156.
32. Sperling, M., & Freedman, S. W. (1987). A good girl writes like a good girl: Written responses to student writing. Written Communication, 9(9), 342-369.
33. Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(1), 76-102.
34. Straub, R. (1996). The concept of control in teacher response: Defining the varieties of "directive" and "facilitative" commentary. College Composition and Communication, 47(2), 223-251.
35. Valenti, S., Neri, F., & Cucchiarelli, A. (2003). An overview of current research on automated essay grading. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2, 319-330.
36. Wallace, D. L., & Hayes, J. R. (1992). Redefining revision for freshmen. In J. R. Hayes, R. E. Young, et al. (Eds.), Reading empirical research studies: The rhetoric of research (pp. 352-369). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. Williams, R., & Dreher, H. (2004). Automatically grading essays with Markit©. Journal of Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 1, 693-700.
38. Williams, R., & Dreher, H. (2005). Formative assessment visual feedback in computer graded essays. Journal of Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 2, 23-32.
39. Yagelski, R. (1995). The role of classroom context in the revision strategies of student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 216-338.
40. Yang, Y., Buckendahl, C., Juszkiewicz, P., & Bhola, D. (2002). A review of strategies for validating computer-automated scoring. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(4), 391-412.