How Learners Use Automated Computer-Based Feedback to Produce Revised Drafts of Essays

Written by
Language: English

© 2012


Our previous results suggest that the use of Criterion, an automatic writing evaluation (AWE) system, is particularly successful in encouraging learners to produce amended drafts of their essays, and that those amended drafts generally represent an improvement on the original submission. Our analysis of the submitted essays and the feedback provided on the first drafts suggests, however, that the students use a variety of quite different strategies when using the automated computer-based feedback to produce amended drafts. These include simply accepting a suggested correction, interpreting a feedback comment to modify the text, and avoidance strategies such as leaving out text that was highlighted as incorrect or problematic. Our data suggest that the strategies the students use are at least partly influenced by the confidence they have in the feedback, and therefore in the system itself, but may also be influenced by their interpretation of how marks are awarded by the system. This presentation will discuss the findings of an in depth analysis of the changes made in second drafts submitted to the system, linking the changes to the automatic feedback provided on the first draft, and exploring the reasons for the changes made by the students. We will suggest ways in which teachers can explore the utility of various strategies with their learners.

Keywords: reflective practice, assessment and feedback, automatic writing evaluation.


Attali, Y. (2004). Exploring the feedback and revision features of Criterion. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-47.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81-90.

Coniam, D. (2009). Experimenting with a computer essay-scoring program based on ESL student writing scripts. ReCALL, 21(2), 259-279. doi: 10.1017/S0958344009000147

Dikli, S. (2006). An Overview of Automated Scoring of Essays. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment (J.T.L.A), 5(1), 1-36.

Ferris, D. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a Fallible Tool: A Multi-Site Case Study of Automated Writing Evaluation. JTLA, 8(6), 1-43.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing: State of the Art. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101. doi: 10.1017/S0261444806003399

Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Brain, G., & Huang, S. (1998). Feedback on student writing: taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307-317. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90019-4

Lee, C., Wong, K., Cheung, W., & Lee, F. (2009). Web-based essay critiquing system and EFL students’ writing: A quantitative and qualitative investigation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 57-72. doi: 10.1080/09588220802613807

Powers, D., Burstein, J., Chodorow, M., Fowles, M., & Kukich, K. (2001). Stumping e-rater: Challenging the validity of automated essay scoring. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from

Rudner, L., & Liang, T. (2002). Automated Essay Scoring Using Bayes’ Theorem. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment (J.T.L.A), 1(2), 1-22.

Wang, J., & Brown, M. (2007). Automated Essay Scoring Versus Human Scoring: A Comparative Study. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment (J.T.L.A), 6( 2), 1-29.

Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31(2), 57-71. doi: 10.1017/S0261444800012970

How to cite

Citation is provided in standard text format below. For full citation export options, click Export citation.

Laing, Jonny; Ebyary, Khaled El; Windeatt, Scott. (2012). How Learners Use Automated Computer-Based Feedback to Produce Revised Drafts of Essays. In Linda Bradley, Sylvie Thouësny (Eds), CALL: Using, Learning, Knowing, EUROCALL Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 22-25 August 2012, Proceedings (pp. 156-160).

Request permissions

This article is published under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives International 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. Under this licence, the contents are freely available online (as PDF files) for anybody to read, download, copy, and redistribute provided that the AUTHOR(s), EDITORIAL TEAM and PUBLISHER are properly cited. Commercial use and derivative works are, however, not permitted.

Permission is not required for the republication of tables, figures or illustrations, as long as they are reproduced accurately and the source material is fully cited. It may be the case that the licence does not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. If this is your current situation, please do feel free to ask at

From the same authors

Using an e-Portfolio System to Improve the Academic Writing Performance of ESL Students
Alshahrani, Ali; Windeatt, Scott.
Collaborative Strategic Reading on Multi-Touch and Multi-User Digital Tabletop Displays
Maslamani, Jaber Ali; Windeatt, Scott; Olivier, Patrick; Heslop, Phil; Kharrufa, Ahmed; Shearer, John; Balaam, Madeline.
How “blended” should “blended learning” be?
Ostrowski, Boguslaw; Windeatt, Scott; Clark, Jill.