PEER AND AUTOMATED WRITING EVALUATION (AWE): INDONESIAN EFL COLLEGE STUDENTS’ PREFERENCE FOR ESSAY EVALUATION

Rita Seroja Ginting(1*), Rahmah Fithriani(2),

(1) Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara Medan
(2) Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


A plethora of studies have investigated the effects of peer evaluation (PE) and automated writing evaluation (AWE) on the writing products and perspectives of English as a foreign language (EFL) students. However, few studies compare students' preferences regarding its utilization to evaluate their essays. This study aimed to determine which method EFL college students prefer for evaluating the quality of their English academic writing. For data collection, a questionnaire was distributed to determine the frequency with which students utilize feedback. Twenty students enrolled in English Education completed the questionnaire. The open-ended interview was then administered to three students in order to gain a deeper understanding of their perspectives on these two modes of evaluation. Frequency count and thematic analysis were utilized to analyze the data. The results indicate that students favor using peer feedback over Grammarly, the AWE software used in this study, for two reasons. First, they view their peers as their real audience, and second, they value their peers' comments more than Grammarly's. However, Grammarly also received positive point as the students enjoys writing with this tool. Therefore, it is believed that the combination of these two s will result in the most essay writing progress.


Keywords


Automated Writing Evaluation; College Students; English Academic Writing; Grammarly; Peer Evaluation

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ariyanto, M. S. A., Mukminatien, N., & Tresnadewi, S. (2021). College students’ perceptions of an automated writing evaluation as a supplementary feedback tool in a writing class. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 27(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.17977/um048v27i1p41-51

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Barrot, J. S. (2020). Integrating technology into ESL/EFL writing through grammarly. RELC Journal, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220966632

Bridgeman, B., Trapani, C., & Attali, Y. (2012). Comparison of human and machine scoring of essays: Differences by gender, ethnicity, and country. Applied Measurement in Education, 25(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2012.635502

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296.

C. P. D. (1979). [Review of L. S. Vygotsky: Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes; Recent trends in Soviet psycholinguistics, by L. S. Vygotsky, M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, E. Souberman, & J. V. Wertsch]. The American Journal of Psychology, 92(1), 166–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/1421493

Dewi, U. (2019). Peer feedback in reviewing essay. SALTeL Journal (Southeast Asia Language Teaching and Learning), 2(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.35307/saltel.v2i2.26

Fahmi, M. A., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2021). EFL students’ perception on the use of Grammarly and teacher feedback. JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 6(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v6i1.849

Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049

Fithriani, R. (2018). Cultural influences on students’ perceptions of written feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Foreign Languange Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.18196/ftl.3124

Fithriani, R. (2019). ZPD and the benefits of written feedback in L2 writing: Focusing on students’ perceptions. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 19(1), 63–73.

Gao, J., & Ma, S. (2020). Instructor feedback on free writing and automated corrective feedback in drills: Intensity and efficacy. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820915337

Ghufron, M. (2019). Exploring an automated feedback program ‘Grammarly’ and teacher corrective feedback in EFL writing assessment: Modern vs. traditional assessment. Proceedings of the 3rd English Language and Literature International Conference, ELLiC, 27th April 2019, Semarang, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.27-4-2019.2285308

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

Hassanzadeh, M., & Fotoohnejad, S. (2021). Implementing an automated feedback program for a foreign language writing course: A learner-centric study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1494–1507. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12587

Hentasmaka, D., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2021). Peer feedback uptakes and outcomes across EFL students’ proficiency levels: A study at tertiary education in Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14316a

Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A Meta-Analysis. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399

Iswandari, Y., & Jiang, Y. (2020). Peer feedback in college EFL writing: A review of empirical research. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 23(2), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v23i2.2799

Jiang, L., & Yu, S. (2020). Appropriating automated feedback in L2 writing: Experiences of Chinese EFL student writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1799824

Jiang, L., Yu, S., & Wang, C. (2020). Second language writing instructors’ feedback practice in response to automated writing evaluation: A sociocultural perspective. System, 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102302

Karlina Ambarwati, E. (2021). Indonesian university students’ appropriating Grammarly for formative feedback. ELT in Focus, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.35706/eltinfc.v4i1.5216

Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294

Lai, Y. H. (2010). Which do students prefer to evaluate their essays: Peers or computer program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00959.x

Levi Altstaedter, L. (2018). Investigating the impact of peer feedback in foreign language writing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1115052

Levine, G. S., Glenn S., Phipps, A. M., & American Association of

University Supervisors, C. (2012). Critical and intercultural theory and language pedagogy. 241.

Li, Z. (2021). Teachers in automated writing evaluation (AWE) system-supported ESL writing classes: Perception, implementation, and influence. System, 99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102505

Liao, H. C. (2016a). Using automated writing evaluation to reduce grammar errors in writing. ELT Journal, 70(3), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv058

Liao, H. C. (2016b). Enhancing the grammatical accuracy of EFL writing by using an AWE-assisted process approach. System, 62, 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.007

Link, S., Mehrzad, M., & Rahimi, M. (2020). Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 0(0), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323

Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386–399.

Matsumura, S. & Hann, G. (2004). Anxiety and students' preferred feedback methods in EFL writing. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 403–415.

Miranty, D., Widiati, U., Cahyono, B. Y., & Sharif, T. I. S. T. (2022). The effectiveness of using Grammarly in teaching writing among Indonesian undergraduate EFL students. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Language, Education, and Culture (ISoLEC 2021), 612(ISoLEC), 41–45. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211212.008

O’Neill, R., & Russell, A. M. T. (2019). Stop! grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3795

Ranalli, J. (2021). L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for learning and issues of trust. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100816

Shang, H. F. (2022). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1629601

Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179

Su, W., & Huang, A. (2021). More enjoyable to give or to receive? Exploring students’ emotional status in their peer feedback of academic writing. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2004389

van Beuningen, C., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156(December), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.2143/itl.156.0.2034439

Vardi, I. (2009). The relationship between feedback and change in tertiary student writing in the disciplines. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 350–361. http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/

Waer, H. (2021). The effect of integrating automated writing evaluation on EFL writing apprehension and grammatical knowledge. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2021.1914062

Wang, J., & Brown, M. S. (2008). Automated essay scoring versus human scoring: A correlational study. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 310–325.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v25i2.4879

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Rita Seroja Ginting

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

Indexed and abstracted in:

     

 

 

LLT Journal Sinta 1 Certificate (S1 = Level 1)

We would like to inform you that LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching has been nationally accredited Sinta 1 by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia based on the decree  No. Surat Keputusan 169/E/KPT/2024. Validity for 5 years: Vol ... No 1, 20... till Vol ... No 2, 20...


Sinta 1 certificate to post here asap. Thank you for your patience and understanding. 

 

  

 

This work is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

 

Free counters!


 LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/llt, e-ISSN 2579-9533 and p-ISSN 1410-7201, is published twice a year, namely in April and October by the English Language Education Study Programme of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.