Article Sidebar

Submitted
Jan 26, 2023
Published
May 23, 2023
Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 616 Download : 553

Main Article Content

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss a critical reflection on the extent to which the use of automated written corrective feedback, in this case, Paper Rater, aligned with the actual classroom implementation, particularly viewed from students’ perception and their writing performance. Students perceive that the feedbacks given during the revision process are useful, particularly in teacher feedback, peer, and the Paper Rater. All students generally understand all the comments/corrections they get from their lecturer, and peer. Some students ignore the whole task after reading the peer's feedback. Students are behaviourally engaged with the multiple feedbacks they receive during the revision process. They also believe that the changes they make in the second draft make my writing better. The feedback they received from their lecturer makes them feel willing to do the task again and will overcome their mistakes with practice. Students are happy with the corrective feedback they receive from teacher, peer and Paper Rater. It clarifies that the students are cognitively engaged with the multiple feedbacks they received. The students also claimed that teacher-student conference is very helpful to mediate their confusion.


Keywords: Robots, automated written

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Syafi’i, A., Purwati, O., & Munir, A. (2023). It’s Robot Time: The Use of Automated Written Feedback in L2 Writing: A Reflection of Student Engagement. ELITE JOURNAL, 5(2), 267-274. Retrieved from https://elitejournal.org/index.php/ELITE/article/view/135

References

  1. Bai, L., & Hu, G. (2017). In the face of fallible AWE feedback: how do students respond? Educational Psychology, 37(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1223275
  2. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
  3. Burstein, J., Mccaffrey, D., Elliot, N., & Klebanov, B. B. (2020). Understanding the Effects of Automated Writing Corrective Feedback on L2 Writing Accuracy Across Proficiency Levels. Francis-Press.Com, 4(11), 53–55. https://doi.org/10.25236/FER.2021.041117
  4. Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990544
  5. Guo, Q., Feng, R., & Hua, Y. (2021). How effectively can EFL students use automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) in research writing? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 0(0), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1879161
  6. Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated : Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.07.003
  7. Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002
  8. Handley, K., Price, M., & Millar, J. (2011). Beyond “doing time”: Investigating the concept of student engagement with feedback. Oxford Review of Education, 37(4), 543–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.604951
  9. Harland, T., & Wald, N. (2021). The assessment arms race and the evolution of a university’s assessment practices. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1745753
  10. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
  11. Isnawati, I., Sulistyo, G. H., Widiati, U., & Suryati, N. (2019). Impacts of Teacher-Written corrective feedback with Teacher-Student conference on students’ revision. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 669–684. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12143a
  12. Khoshnevisan, B. (2020). The Affordances and Constraints of Automatic Writing Evaluation ( AWE ) Tools : A Case for Grammarly. Research Gate, (April), 12–25.
  13. Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2017). “I feel disappointed”: EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31, 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.07.001
  14. Miranty, D., & Widiati, U. (2021). Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) in Higher Education: Indonesian EFL Students’ Perceptions about Grammarly Use across Student Cohorts. Pegem Egitim ve Ogretim Dergisi, 11(4), 126–137. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.11.04.12
  15. Miranty, D., Widiati, U., Cahyono, B. Y., Suzila, T. I., & Sharif, T. (2021). The Effectiveness of Using Grammarly in Teaching Writing Among Indonesian Undergraduate EFL Students. 612(ISoLEC), 41–45.
  16. Mulder, R., Baik, C., Naylor, R., & Pearce, J. (2014). How does student peer review influence perceptions, engagement and academic outcomes? A case study. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(6), 657–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.860421
  17. Mulliner, E., & Tucker, M. (2017). Feedback on feedback practice: perceptions of students and academics. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 266–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1103365
  18. Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
  19. Ranalli, J. (2018). Automated written corrective feedback: how well can students make use of it? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 653–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994
  20. Shang, H. F. (2019). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 0(0), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1629601
  21. Shermis, M. D., Garvan, C. W., & Diao, Y. (2008). The Impact of Automated Essay Scoring on Writing Outcomes. 1–45.
  22. Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2008). Automated Writing Assessment in the Classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800701771580
  23. Wilson, J., Olinghouse, N. G., & Andrada, G. N. (2014). Does automated feedback improve writing quality? Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 12(1), 93–118.
  24. Wilson, J., & Roscoe, R. D. (2020). Automated Writing Evaluation and Feedback: Multiple Metrics of Efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(1), 87–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119830764
  25. Yu, B.-B. (2015). Incorporation of Automated Writing Evaluation Software in Language Education: A Case of Evening University Students‟ Self-Regulated Learning in Taiwan. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(11), 808–813. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2015.v5.616
  26. Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37(January), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001