ON THE RELATION BETWEEN AUTOMATED ESSAY SCORING AND MODERN VIEWS OF THE WRITING CONSTRUCT; P. Deane (2013)

We are living in an era of rapidly changing  technologies, and are witnessing substantial changes because of integration of those technologies in every sphere . Some may consider this technological revolution as a significant achievement of mankind, whereas for some people this bring new irrevocable changes.  What is more concerning is the fact that even humans are being replaced by technologies. The field of education is not an exception. The day when classrooms will simply  become virtual platforms and computers will  substitute teachers is just around the corner.Today we can see  institutions, such as universities and schools, adopting and bringing new technological tools into classrooms to fulfill the educational needs of 21st century citizen.

Today`s article is a review of one of such technological tools; Automated Essay Writing (AES), which continues to be adopted by many educational institutions with the aim  of assessing students writing proficiency(through essays) in such high- stake tests, as TOEFL IBTGRE and GMAT, etc. The essence of AES as a “second hand’ scorer or E-rater has always been questioned and thus lead to arguments as to whether it`s a reliable and valid way of testing the complex nature of human writing.The question as to  what extent AES results correlate with human holistic scoring  has also been  the “hottest’ issues discussed, However these kind of arguments didn`t specifically intend to show the privilege of human scoring on AES.

If we  try to look at AES from different perspectives it has several advantages, such as low cost, immediate  feedback,and objectivity. Yes, AES can perfectly  evaluate essays by checking the correct use of propositions or grammar structures, punctuation or mechanics.However despite  its advantages AES is not perfect, as everything in the world. It  is believed to have drawbacks as well. First of all it violates the social nature of writing. Thus it`s more reasonable always have a human scorer who will be able  interpret the meaning, evaluate quality of argumentation and/ or natural flow of thoughts.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s