Comparing the validity of automated and human scoring of essays.
Automated evaluation of essays and short answers. On the five dimensions of focus, development, organization, mechanics, and sentence structure, the correlations ranged from.
Argues that machine scoring does not treat writing as a rhetorical interaction between writers and readers. Describes two studies using Project Essay Grade PEG software for placement of students into college-level writing courses.
In Marie C.
IntelliMetric picked only one of the 18 non-successful students, and humans picked only 6 of them. The authors feel that more classroom research is needed before deciding the true worth of machine analysis.Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8 4 , n. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8 , Give students practice in giving and receiving peer feedback using the peer editing tool. Contrasts the computational linguistic framework of Criterion with a position rooted in the social construction of language and language development. Correlations between machine and human scores ranging from. Argues that scoring packages such as e-Write or e-rater and the algorithms that drive them, such as latent semantic analysis or multiple regression on countable traits, may serve to evaluate reproducible knowledge or "dead" text formats such as the 5-paragraph essay p. Standardized tests are designed in such a way that the questions, conditions for administering, scoring procedures, creative writing train journey controlled are consistent  and are administered and scored in a predetermined, standard assessment.