Using automated writing evaluation

to reduce grammar errors in writing

Hui-Chuan Liao

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Tsing Hua University Library on July 22, 2016
Despite the recent development of automated writing evaluation (AWE)
technology and the growing interest in applying this technology to language
classrooms, few studies have looked at the effects of using AWE on reducing
grammatical errors in L2 writing. This study identified the primary English
grammatical error types made by 66 Taiwanese university students in order to
examine how using AWE in a process-writing approach affected improvements
in these error types in revisions and new text composition. The study adopted
a time-series research design, in which measurements of grammatical errors in
student writing were taken at various points during a nine-week pedagogical
programme. An AWE system was employed as the writing and assessment tool.
The AWE feedback reports on the student essays were analysed using descriptive
analysis and paired-samples t tests. Using AWE in a process-writing approach
seemed to exert a reducing effect on the number of grammatical errors during
both revisions and new text composition, although the patterns regarding the
precise appearances of effects varied amongst the error types.

Introduction L2 researchers have typically agreed that linguistic accuracy facilitates clear
presentation of ideas. Although the L2 composition instructional trend has
shifted from focusing on grammar to emphasizing meaning, controlling
language surface features enables L2 writers to communicate their
intended meaning effectively (Ferris 2006; Hyland and Hyland 2006).
To assist students in developing writing skills, an increasing number of
practitioners have shown interest in applying automated writing evaluation
(AWE) technology in teaching composition. However, although AWE
has developed into a distinct area of scholarship, most studies regarding
AWE have focused on the validity of large-scale assessments or learner
perceptions of AWE use. Scant literature has focused on the effects of
employing AWE on reducing linguistic errors in L2 essays, and no prior
study has examined the effects of using Criterion, a common AWE tool
in Asian English-writing classrooms, in a multiple-draft process-writing
approach on improving L2 writing regarding distinct grammatical error
types. This study was conducted to address this gap in the literature.

Error feedback Previous research has observed that error feedback benefits L2 language
development to varying degrees (Hyland and Hyland op.cit.; Truscott

ELT Journal Volume 70/3 July 2016; doi:10.1093/elt/ccv058  308

© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication November 18, 2015
 and Hsu 2008). Ferris (1999, 2006) indicated that the effectiveness of
error feedback may be affected by teacher variance (for example teacher
training and subsequent ability to respond accurately to learner errors),
student variance (for example learning motivation and styles), and the
mode of feedback (for example selective versus comprehensive and direct
versus indirect). Regarding the mode of feedback, Ferris (1999, 2006)
and Bitchener and Knoch (2009) have suggested that teachers provide
error feedback selectively and help learners to identify those grammatical
aspects that require their attention most pressingly. Bitchener and Knoch
(ibid.) observed that selective error feedback is particularly effective for
resolving ‘treatable’ grammar problems, which, according to Ferris (1999:
6), are errors that ‘occur in a patterned, rule-governed way’ and can be
fixed when learners review the rules governing these errors; examples of

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Tsing Hua University Library on July 22, 2016
treatable errors include sentence fragments, subject–verb disagreement,
run-on sentences, and verb tense and conjugation errors. Ferris (2006)
suggested using indirect feedback (i.e. identifying errors without
providing the correct forms) to draw students’ attention to such errors,
and encourage them to review related grammatical rules and fix the errors
independently.
Ferris (2006) examined the effects of error feedback on enhancing
the linguistic accuracy of 92 L2 university students, reporting an
improvement in 80 per cent of their revised essays. A further longitudinal
comparison between the original drafts of the first and fourth essays
produced during the study revealed an overall reduction in the number
of grammatical errors over one semester. The writing pedagogy used in
Ferris followed Zamel’s (1985) writing instructional approach, which
incorporates multiple revisions and, during each stage of the revision
cycle, enables L2 students to focus solely on certain writing aspects,
thereby facilitating manageable and effective writing development. Zamel
suggested that teacher comments on first drafts should focus on meaning,
whereas comments regarding linguistic concerns should occur later in the
revision process. This type of multiple-draft process can be enhanced by
applying recently developed AWE technology.

The effectiveness The most noticeable advantage of AWE systems is their capability to
of using AWE in L2 generate feedback immediately. Writing instructors can save time by
classrooms incorporating AWE into writing curricula, focusing instead on the higher-
order aspects of student writing. Because students can access AWE
systems and submit their writing for evaluation anywhere and anytime,
the ubiquity and immediacy of AWE feedback enable practising writing
when no human support is available (Wang and Goodman 2012). In
addition, L2 writers using an online AWE system can conveniently and
efficiently consult internet resources for information on language usage
and idea development. The convenience of computer technology and
the ubiquitous nature of AWE can enable learners to develop autonomy.
Wang and Goodman (ibid.) observed that autonomous computer-aided
writing programmes facilitated learner responsibility and enhanced the
independent and critical thinking of L2 writers.
Although earlier studies have reported that Vantage’s My Access (for example
Chen and Cheng 2008) and Educational Testing Service’s Criterion (Otoshi

Increasing grammatical accuracy through automated writing evaluation 309

 2005), two AWE systems frequently employed in the Asian L2 education
context, performed unsatisfactorily in identifying and responding to linguistic
errors, Chen, Chiu, and Liao (2009) evaluated a newer version of Criterion,
determining an accuracy rate of 80 per cent in responding to grammatical
errors. Wang, Shang, and Briody (2013) evaluated Vantage’s CorrectEnglish,
and observed that the software enhanced grammatical accuracy in L2
student essays. According to the findings of previous studies concerning the
advantages of AWE use and the continual advancement of AWE technology,
AWE can be a useful tool to facilitate students’ writing development.
AWE should, however, be used as a supplemental tool instead of a
replacement for teacher feedback because of numerous limitations.
First, AWE cannot substitute for a real audience. Wang and Goodman

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Tsing Hua University Library on July 22, 2016
investigated learner perceptions of AWE use and observed that because
‘AWE only offers one-way communication’ (op.cit.: 19), students ‘do
not have an opportunity to clarify their doubts regarding the best way to
make use of the feedback’ (ibid.: 20). In addition, AWE systems perform
ineffectively at addressing global language concerns, including meaning,
idea development, and aspects of writing that require higher-order thinking.
For example, Chen and Cheng (op.cit.) examined three L2 university
composition courses in Taiwan that utilized My Access and investigated
how teachers and students evaluated the effectiveness of the system
in facilitating writing. The researchers observed that AWE performed
unsatisfactorily when responding to idea development, and that ‘human
input was imperative for students’ revising process’ with respect to global
concerns (ibid.: 100). Because AWE is ‘limited in its higher-order aspects of
writing’, Attali, Lewis, and Steier (2012: 127) suggested a ‘division of labour’,
in which human evaluators focus on the global aspects of writing and AWE
focuses on the local aspects of writing. This suggestion is in line with the
principles of the process-writing pedagogy proposed by Zamel (op.cit.).

Research questions Time effectiveness, ease of access, and the cultivation of autonomous
learning are the reported advantages of AWE use. However, few studies
have examined the effects of AWE use on enhancing the grammatical
accuracy of L2 writers. Targeting this research gap, the current study
addressed the following research questions:

1 What are the participants’ primary pre-treatment grammatical error types?

2 Does using AWE in a process-writing approach improve learner
linguistic accuracy in revising texts regarding these error types?
3 Does using AWE in a process-writing approach improve learner
linguistic accuracy in writing new texts regarding these error types?

Methods Sixty-six Taiwanese college sophomore students in three mixed-ability (CEFR

Context and levels A2 to B2) English essay writing classes participated in this study.
participants The instructor had taught college English composition for 12 years. Prior to
the course, the participants had completed two English-grammar and two
paragraph-writing courses. During a nine-week pedagogical treatment in the
first half of the semester, all of the participants completed four comparison-
essay assignments: ‘How my friends and family see me’, ‘Different teaching
styles’, ‘A fictional character and me’, and ‘Teenagers in media and in reality’.

310 Hui-Chuan Liao

Pedagogical design Based on Zamel’s (op.cit.) process-writing principle, a recursive four-
step writing process was designed. This design was intended to help the
learners focus on one aspect of writing at each step of the writing process
and facilitate manageable and effective learning. As Figure 1 indicates,
when composing each of the four essays, the participants first focused
on meaning with teacher scaffolding in Steps A and B, and subsequently
focused on linguistic accuracy with AWE scaffolding in Steps C and D.
The participants first drafted essays by hand and submitted hard copies
to their instructor at the end of class (Step A). Exclusively focusing on
meaning, the instructor provided written comments and held student–
teacher writing conferences between the weekly classes. In the first hour of
the following class, the students continued to develop the essay, addressing

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Tsing Hua University Library on July 22, 2016

figure1
Multiple-revision writing
process

Increasing grammatical accuracy through automated writing evaluation 311

 the meaning-focused teacher commentary (Step B). In the second hour,
the participants entered the form-focus stage by self-editing the linguistic
aspect of the essay without teacher input (Step C). Upon completing Steps
A to C, the students submitted the original-draft essays to the AWE system.
In the first hour of class the subsequent week, the participants revised
their drafts according to the AWE linguistic feedback (Step D). Instead
of addressing all of the AWE feedback, which included 39 error types in
the categories of mechanics, usage, style, organization, and grammar,
the students were instructed to focus on feedback relating to the nine
types of errors in the grammar category. This approach successively
directed learner attention to distinct aspects of composition to ensure a
manageable writing progress (Zamel op.cit.). Furthermore, to help the

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Tsing Hua University Library on July 22, 2016
participants maximize self-learning and self-monitoring when using
the AWE system, the instructors demonstrated how writers could use
the AWE writer’s handbook and progress report to solve their linguistic
problems and monitor their learning progress, respectively. This guidance
was provided comprehensively before the pedagogical programme and in
three mini-lessons during the recursive four-step writing process.

Automated writing The AWE system used as the writing and assessment tool in Steps C and
evaluation tool D was Criterion 9.1. Criterion is one of the most common AWE systems
used in Asian L2 classrooms. Chen et al. (op.cit.) indicated the potential
of its grammatical feedback in helping L2 learners improve writing.
However, despite its potential in facilitating writing development, little
research has examined its effects on enhancing linguistic accuracy in L2
student essays. This study was conducted to address this knowledge gap.
The AWE system employs an e-rater scoring engine to provide automatic
and immediate feedback and identify areas requiring grammatical, usage,
mechanical, style, and organizational improvement. This study focused on
grammar, for which the system identified nine categories of linguistic errors:
■■ fragments
■■ run-on sentences
■■ garbled sentences
■■ subject–verb disagreement
■■ ill-formed verbs
■■ pronoun errors
■■ possessive errors
■■ wrong or missing words
■■ ‘proofread this’ (i.e. mistakes that are difficult to label as specific errors).
After submitting the essay, the student received immediate AWE
feedback. A bar chart summarized the frequencies of each linguistic error
type made regarding grammar (Figure 2). The student could click on any
error type to open a new window displaying the essay marked for that
specific error type. The student could then read a succinct explanation of
each mistake by placing the cursor over the marked error (Figure 3) and
subsequently use this facilitative, indirect feedback to make revisions.
Table 1 provides examples of learner errors and the resulting AWE
comments. When such feedback was unable to facilitate text revision, the
student could consult the electronic writer’s handbook, which provided

312 Hui-Chuan Liao

 Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Tsing Hua University Library on July 22, 2016
figure 2
Summary graph of grammar
error frequencies by error type

figure 3
A sample feedback window
identifying subject–verb
disagreement and providing
facilitative feedback
grammatical explanations and demonstrated both correct and incorrect
usage to facilitate the self-editing of the identified errors.
Before its implementation, this AWE-assisted writing programme was
assessed using Chapelle’s (2001) computer-assisted language learning
(CALL) evaluation criteria: authenticity, meaning focus, language learning
potential, practicality, learner fit, and positive impact. The instructor assigned
the students authentic communicative tasks (authenticity) that focused on
meaning (meaning focus) in Steps A and B. By refining grammar in Step
C and addressing AWE-provided linguistic feedback in Step D, the learners
had opportunities to focus on form (language learning potential) while
communicating meaning. The AWE system identified errors and featured
various electronic resources (practicality), namely pop-up notes providing
concise explanations and a writer’s handbook providing detailed information

Increasing grammatical accuracy through automated writing evaluation 313

Error types Examples of errors AWE comments
Fragments No need to follow the trend. I just want to be This sentence may be a fragment.
myself. Proofread the sentence to be sure
that it has an independent clause
with a complete subject and
predicate.
Run-on sentences This reminds me, I appear differ in different This sentence may be a run-on
places, too. sentence. Proofread it to see if it
contains too many independent
clauses or contains independent
clauses that have been combined
without conjunctions or punctuation.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Tsing Hua University Library on July 22, 2016
Look at the “Writer’s Handbook”
for advice about correcting run-on
sentences.
Ill-formed verbs I won’t backbiting and cheat my friends again. This verb may be incorrect. Proofread
the sentence to make sure you have
used the correct form of the verb.
Note: Underlining denotes the errors identified by the AWE system

1
ta b l e
Examples of learner errors
and feedback
and example sentences, to facilitate the learning of students at various
language levels (learner fit). By using the e-portfolio in the AWE system, the
students could monitor their progress and, if the learning outcomes were
positive, experience a sense of achievement (positive impact).

Data collection and The AWE reports regarding the linguistic performance in the original and
analysis revised essay drafts (Figure 1, Steps C and D) were collected to investigate
the three research questions. Because the student essay lengths varied
amongst the four essays, the raw number of grammatical errors in each
draft and of each grammar type was transformed to the number of errors
per 250 words. Descriptive statistics and ranking were used to address the
first research question. Paired-samples t tests were employed to explore
the second and third research questions.

Results This study examined the effects of using AWE feedback in a multiple-draft
process-writing pedagogy on improving L2 student grammatical accuracy,
focusing on the primary types of errors the students made. The answers to
the three research questions are now presented.

Primary grammatical To identify the participants’ primary pre-treatment (i.e. before learner
error types performance was conditioned by the pedagogical treatment) grammatical
error types, thereby providing baseline data for Research Questions 2 and
3, the error frequencies in the original drafts of Essay 1 were calculated
(Table 2) using the AWE system. Fragments, subject–verb disagreement,
run-on sentences, and ill-formed verbs were identified as the primary
grammatical error types before students used the AWE feedback.

Effects on revisions To examine whether using AWE in a process-writing pedagogy improved

learner linguistic accuracy regarding the four dominant grammatical error

314 Hui-Chuan Liao

 Error type N Minimum Maximum Mean SD
1 Fragments 66 .00 17.93 5.43 5.15
2 Subject–verb disagreement 66 .00 15.08 3.02 4.25
3 Run-on sentences 66 .00 5.25 1.96 1.83
4 Ill-formed verbs 66 .00 10.50 1.22 1.69
5 Possessive errors 66 .00 3.59 .41 1.01
6 Proofread this 66 .00 3.68 .37 1.09
7 Wrong or missing words 66 .00 3.68 .35 .97
8 Garbled sentences 66 .00 7.88 .16 1.02
9 Pronoun errors 66 .00 2.63 .12 .55
Total 66 .00 42.00 13.04 9.49
Note: aPer 250 words

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Tsing Hua University Library on July 22, 2016
2
ta b l e
Grammatical error
frequenciesa according
to type before using AWE
feedback
types in the revised texts, paired-samples t tests were used to compare the
mean error frequencies between the original and revised drafts of the four
essays. Table 3 shows that the effects varied amongst the error types. A
decrease in fragments and subject–verb disagreement was observed in the
revised drafts of Essays 1–4, whereas a decrease in run-on sentences was
noted in the revised drafts of Essays 1, 3, and 4. By contrast, a reduction
in the number of ill-formed verbs was not observed until the revised
drafts of Essay 4 had been completed. Although the effects of using AWE
occurred at various times for different error types, improved accuracy in
all four error types was observed by the end of the nine-week pedagogical
programme, indicating these grammatical errors are treatable, as Ferris
(1999) stated, by using AWE as an assessment and facilitative tool without
teacher intervention in the process-writing approach.

Effects on new text
construction
To examine whether using AWE in process writing enhanced learner
linguistic accuracy regarding the four error types in new texts, paired-
samples t tests were conducted to compare the mean error frequencies
amongst the four original drafts. The compared pairs of essays are listed in
Table 4. As indicated in the table, mixed findings were observed amongst
the various error types: Fragments in Pairs 1, 3, and 4; subject–verb
disagreement in Pairs 1 and 4; and run-on sentences and ill-formed verbs
in Pair 4 differed significantly. In other words, the frequency of fragments
decreased in the original drafts of Essays 2 and 4, whereas that of subject–
verb disagreement decreased in the original drafts of Essay 2. Regarding
both run-on sentences and ill-formed verbs, no improvement was
observed in the original drafts of any of the subsequent essays; however,
improvement was detected between the original drafts of Essays 1 and 4,
suggesting that progress was achieved after the learners had used the AWE
feedback for several rounds of writing. These results indicated that the
effects of AWE on reducing the number of fragments and subject–verb
disagreements when writing new texts occurred early in the programme,
whereas the effects on reducing run-on sentences and ill-formed verbs
were not noticeable until the end of the programme. Overall, despite the

Increasing grammatical accuracy through automated writing evaluation 315

Essay Paired-samples t
Original draft Revised draft tests
Mean SD Mean SD df t
Fragments
 Essay 1 5.43 5.15 3.31 2.94 65 4.44**
 Essay 2 3.69 3.17 2.28 2.02 65 5.59**
 Essay 3 3.57 4.03 1.39 1.65 65 4.42**
 Essay 4 1.90 1.82 1.23 1.56 65 2.21*
Subject–verb disagreement
 Essay 1 3.02 4.25 1.19 2.04 65 3.80**
 Essay 2 2.25 3.18 .80 1.42 65 3.45**

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Tsing Hua University Library on July 22, 2016
 Essay 3 1.50 1.60 .94 1.27 65 2.51*
 Essay 4 1.38 1.60 .45 .93 65 4.15**
Run-on sentences
 Essay 1 1.96 1.83 1.28 1.98 65 2.17*
 Essay 2 1.61 2.36 1.37 2.14 65 .88
 Essay 3 1.55 1.76 .52 1.26 65 6.07**
 Essay 4 1.15 1.94 .81 1.27 65 2.71*
Ill-formed verbs
 Essay 1 1.22 1.69 .72 1.37 65 1.73
 Essay 2 .78 1.69 .66 1.38 65 .48
 Essay 3 .78 1.21 .66 1.07 65 1.57
 Essay 4 .58 .99 .33 .55 65 2.23*
Note: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01

3
ta b l e
Effects of using AWE on
reducing primary types of
grammatical errors
in revisions
variations amongst these categories in both revisions and new texts, a
general trend of linguistic growth facilitated by using AWE was noted.

Discussion Fragments, subject–verb disagreement, run-on sentences, and ill-formed

verbs were identified as the four dominant error types made by the
participants. The results correspond with those of previous L1 and L2
error studies in that these errors are amongst the most common mistakes
of language learners (for example Zheng and Park 2013). Although the
patterns in the effects varied amongst the four error types in the short
term, a trend towards linguistic development was observed over time.
These findings reflect the positive effects of AWE use and support relevant
interlanguage theory and research (Ortega 2009), suggesting that AWE-
assisted foreign language learning processes are gradual, incremental, and
non-linear, resulting in the uneven development of sub-skills.
One possible factor contributing to the positive effects of AWE on
enhancing linguistic performance in these four error types is the use of
the indirect feedback provided by the AWE system. Indirect feedback
regarding grammatical errors enabled the students to reflect on the
comments and engage in critical learning while amending the errors.

316 Hui-Chuan Liao

Pair Comparison Paired-samples t
Essay N Essay N + 1 tests
Mean SD Mean SD df t
Fragments
  1 Essay 1–Essay 2 5.43 5.15 3.69 3.17 65 2.75*
  2 Essay 2–Essay 3 3.69 3.17 3.57 4.03 65 .19
  3 Essay 3–Essay 4 3.57 4.03 1.90 1.82 65 3.28**
  4 Essay 1–Essay 4 5.43 5.15 1.90 1.82 65 4.84**
Subject–verb disagreement
  1 Essay 1–Essay 2 3.02 4.25 2.25 3.18 65 3.81**
  2 Essay 2–Essay 3 2.25 3.18 1.50 1.60 65 1.66

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Tsing Hua University Library on July 22, 2016
  3 Essay 3–Essay 4 1.50 1.60 1.38 1.60 65 .42
  4 Essay 1–Essay 4 3.02 4.25 1.38 1.60 65 3.44**
Run-on sentences
  1 Essay 1–Essay 2 1.96 1.83 1.61 2.36 65 1.05
  2 Essay 2–Essay 3 1.61 2.36 1.55 1.76 65 .20
  3 Essay 3–Essay 4 1.55 1.76 1.15 1.94 65 1.46
  4 Essay 1–Essay 4 1.96 1.83 1.15 1.94 65 2.53*
Ill-formed verbs
  1 Essay 1–Essay 2 1.22 1.69 .78 1.69 65 1.44
  2 Essay 2–Essay 3 .78 1.69 .78 1.21 65 .02
  3 Essay 3–Essay 4 .78 1.21 .58 .99 65 .95
  4 Essay 1–Essay 4 1.22 1.69 .58 .99 65 2.69*
Note: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01

4
ta b l e
Effects of AWE on reducing
primary types of grammatical
errors in new texts
Such feedback is most effective when students have received grammar
instruction previously because the knowledge can help learners
comprehend the grammar terminology in the feedback and facilitate self-
editing (Ferris 1999). The sophomore participants had received 72 hours
of grammar instruction in their freshman year prior to this study. Another
possible contributing factor is the treatable characteristic of the four error
types; according to Ferris (1999, 2006), errors in these categories are
considered treatable when learners are provided with explicit grammatical
instruction or access to self-study materials. The participants’ previous
grammar lessons and access to self-study materials (i.e. the AWE writer’s
handbook) might have helped them fix these four grammatical error types.
The positive effects can be further discussed in relation to Zamel’s (op.cit.)
multiple-draft writing and revision cycle. The writing programme was
designed based on Zamel’s model to successively focus student attention
on specific areas of writing and thereby facilitate manageable writing
development. As illustrated in Figure 1, the students focused on content in
Steps A and B and then on grammar in Steps C and D; teacher feedback
on meaning and AWE feedback on form were provided separately so
that the students could address one type of feedback at a time. Had
the students been required to consider feedback on both meaning and

Increasing grammatical accuracy through automated writing evaluation 317

 grammar or on all 39 error types (in mechanics, usage, style, organization,
and grammar) simultaneously, they might have become cognitively
overloaded and the effects might have to have been discounted. The
positive effects observed in this study support incorporating AWE in the
process-writing programme proposed by Zamel.

Conclusion The current study examined the effects that AWE use exerted on reducing
the number of grammatical errors in L2 writing. Although different types of
grammatical errors were affected at various times because of the learners’
uneven interlanguage development (Ortega op.cit.), an overall trend towards
improvement was detected. The positive effects can be ascribed to the
repeated practice of linguistic elements facilitated by using the AWE system
in a process-writing pedagogy. From a pedagogical perspective, these findings

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Tsing Hua University Library on July 22, 2016
extend the understanding of the effects of AWE use in L2 classrooms and
can inform L2 teachers regarding the use of AWE as a supplemental tool to
facilitate the local aspect of student writing development.
Certain limitations in this study must be acknowledged. First, the findings
were limited to the nine grammatical error types identified by Criterion.
Future studies should explore other grammatical error types and compare
the results with those of this study. Moreover, the participants in this study
practised writing through the use of AWE technology for one half of a
semester. Whether the positive effects observed in the current study will
be enhanced or reduced over time should be investigated by conducting a
longitudinal study in the future. In addition, although the proficiency levels of
the participants varied, this study focused on the effects of AWE on the entire
group. Whether differential effects are exerted on learners of varying ability
levels warrants further investigation. Finally, the prospects of enabling learners
to notice language gaps and restructure interlanguage, and instructors to have
more time to focus on meaning, indicate a possible blended teaching and
assessment model that should be explored in future studies.
Final version received September 2015

References evaluation systems: My Access and Criterion’. English

Attali, Y., W. Lewis, and M. Steier. 2012. ‘Scoring with
the computer: alternative procedures for improving
the reliability of holistic essay scoring’. Language
Testing 30/1: 125–41.
Bitchener, J. and U. Knoch. 2009. ‘The value of a
focused approach to written corrective feedback’. ELT
Journal 63/3: 204–11.
Chapelle, C. 2001. Computer Applications in Second
Language Acquisition: Foundations for Teaching, Testing,
and Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, C-F. and W-Y. Cheng. 2008. ‘Beyond the design
of automated writing evaluation: pedagogical practices
and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing
classes’. Language Learning & Technology 12/2: 94–112.
Chen, H-J., T-L. Chiu, and P. Liao. 2009. ‘Analyzing
the grammar feedback of two automated writing
Teaching & Learning 33/2: 1–43.
Ferris, D. 1999. ‘The case for grammar correction
in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott
(1996)’. Journal of Second Language Writing 8/1:
1–11.
Ferris, D. 2006. ‘Does error feedback help student
writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term
effects of written error correction’ in K. Hyland
and F. Hyland (eds.). Feedback in Second Language
Writing: Contexts and Issues. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. and F. Hyland. 2006. ‘Contexts and issues
in feedback on L2 writing: an introduction’ in
K. Hyland and F. Hyland (eds.). Feedback in Second
Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.

318 Hui-Chuan Liao

Ortega, L. 2009. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
Otoshi, J. 2005. ‘An analysis of the use of Criterion in
a writing classroom in Japan’. The JALT CALL Journal
1/1: 30–8.
Truscott, J. and A. Y. Hsu. 2008. ‘Error correction,
revision, and learning’. Journal of Second Language
Writing 17/4: 292–305.
Wang, M-J. and D. Goodman. 2012. ‘Automated
writing evaluation: students’ perceptions and
emotional involvement’. English Teaching & Learning
36/3: 1–37.
Wang, Y-J., H-F. Shang, and P. Briody. 2013.
‘Exploring the impact of using automated writing
evaluation in English as a foreign language university
students’ writing’. Computer Assisted Language
Learning 26/3: 234–57.
Increasing grammatical accuracy through automated writing evaluation
Zamel, V. 1985. ‘Responding to student writing’.
TESOL Quarterly 19/1: 79–101.
Zheng, C. and T-J. Park. 2013. ‘An analysis of errors
in English writing made by Chinese and Korean
university students’. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies 3/8: 1342–51.
The author
Hui-Chuan Liao, PhD, is an Associate Professor in
the Department of Applied Foreign Languages at
National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences in
Taiwan. Her current research interests include TEFL,
classroom language assessment, instructional design
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Tsing Hua University Library on July 22, 2016
and evaluation in writing and speaking, learning
strategies, and the effects of individual differences on
language learning.
Email: hliao@kuas.edu.tw
319