Does automated feedback help students learn to write?

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 173-196

  Kellogg, Ronald T ^a   Whiteford, Alison P ^a   Quinlan, Thomas ^b  

^a SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 76849106644     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/EC.42.2.c     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with E-rater V. 2.0. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4, 13-18.
2. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213-238.
3. Beach, R., & Friedrich, T. (2006). Response to writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 222-234). New York: Guilford.
4. Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Breland, H. M., Camp, R., Jones, R. J., Morris, M. M., & Rock, D. A. (1987). Assessing writing skill (No.0-87447-280-6). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
6. 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 (pp. 113-122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Burstein, J., & Wolska, M. (2003, April). Toward evaluation of writing style: Finding overly repetitive word use in student essays. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Budapest, Hungary.
8. Calfee, R. C., & Miller, R. G. (2007). Best practices in writing assessment. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 265-286). New York: Guilford Press.
9. Center for Survey Research and Analysis. (2002, November). History Research Paper Study. Retrieved December 15, 2003 from the Concord Review website: www.tcr.org/ historytcr.pdf
10. Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Wilson, R. W. (2006). Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 891-901.
11. Diederich, P. B. (1974). Measuring growth in English. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English
12. Diederich, P. B., French, J. W., & Carlton, S. T. (1961). Factors in the judgement of writing quality (No.RB 6, 1-15). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
13. Dorow, L. G., & Boyle, M. E. (1998). Instructor feedback for college writing assignments in introductory classes. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 115-129.
14. Eliott, N. (2005). On a scale: A social history of writing assessment in America. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
15. Ericsson, P. F. (2006). The meaning of meaning: Is a paragraph more than an equation. In P. F. Ericsson & R. H. Haswell (Eds.), Machine scoring of student essays (pp. 28-37). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
16. Ericsson, P. F., & Haswell, R. H. (Eds.). (2006). Machine scoring of student essays. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
17. Foltz, P. W., Kintsch, W.,&Landauer, T. K. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2-3), 285-307.
18. Foltz, P. W., & Wells, A. D. (1999). Automatically deriving readers' knowledge structures from texts. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 31, 208-214.
19. Freedman, S. W., & Calfee, R. C. (1983). Holistic assessment of writing: Experimental design and cognitive theory. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), Research in writing: Principles and methods (pp. 75-98). New York: Longman.
20. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193-202.
21. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-113.
22. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
23. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Huot, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of Educational Research, 60, 237-263.
25. Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 136-160.
26. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2-3), 259-284.
27. Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., & Foltz, P. W. (2003). Automatic essay assessment. Assessment in Higher Education, 10, 295-308.
28. McGee, T. (2006). Taking a spin on the Intelligent Essay Assessor. In P. F. Ericsson & R. H. Haswell (Eds.), Machine scoring of student essays (pp. 79-92). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
29. National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2007). Annual Report 2007. Available at http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE-2007-Annual-Report/docs/NSSE-2007-Annual- Report.pdf
30. Page, E. B. (1966). Grading essays by computer. Paper presented at the Progress Report Invitational Conference on Testing Problems. from http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1967- 15820-001&site=ehost-live&scope=site
31. Page, E. B. (2003). Project essay grade: PEG. In M. D. Shermis & J. C. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. (pp. 43-54). Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207-217.
33. Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189.
34. The National Commission on Writing. (2003, April). The neglected "R": The need for a writing revolution. Available at http://www.writingcommission.org/prod-downloads/ writingcom/neglectedr.pdf
35. Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 157-180.