Predictors of middle school students’ perceptions of automated writing evaluation

IF 8.9 1区 教育学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Computers & Education Pub Date : 2023-12-26 DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104985
Joshua Wilson , Fan Zhang , Corey Palermo , Tania Cruz Cordero , Matthew C. Myers , Halley Eacker , Andrew Potter , Jessica Coles
{"title":"Predictors of middle school students’ perceptions of automated writing evaluation","authors":"Joshua Wilson ,&nbsp;Fan Zhang ,&nbsp;Corey Palermo ,&nbsp;Tania Cruz Cordero ,&nbsp;Matthew C. Myers ,&nbsp;Halley Eacker ,&nbsp;Andrew Potter ,&nbsp;Jessica Coles","doi":"10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104985","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study examined middle school students' perceptions of an automated writing evaluation (AWE) system, <em>MI Write</em>. We summarize students' perceptions of MI Write's usability, usefulness, and desirability both quantitatively and qualitatively. We then estimate hierarchical entry regression models that account for district context, classroom climate, demographic factors (i.e., gender, special education status, limited English proficiency status, socioeconomic status, grade), students' writing-related beliefs and affect, and students' writing proficiency as predictors of students' perceptions. Controlling for districts, students reporting more optimal classroom climate also reported higher usability, usefulness, and desirability for MI Write. Also, model results revealed that eighth graders, students with limited English proficiency, and students of lower socioeconomic status perceived MI Write relatively more useable; students with lower socioeconomic status also perceived MI Write relatively more useful and desirable. Students who liked writing more and more strongly believed that writing is a recursive process viewed MI Write as more useable, useful, and desirable. Students with greater writing proficiency viewed MI Write as less useable and useful; writing proficiency was not related to desirability perceptions. We conclude with a discussion of implications and future directions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10568,"journal":{"name":"Computers & Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131523002622/pdfft?md5=ccc84f7db47e07b6e0e7bb214d132a00&pid=1-s2.0-S0360131523002622-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers & Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131523002622","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examined middle school students' perceptions of an automated writing evaluation (AWE) system, MI Write. We summarize students' perceptions of MI Write's usability, usefulness, and desirability both quantitatively and qualitatively. We then estimate hierarchical entry regression models that account for district context, classroom climate, demographic factors (i.e., gender, special education status, limited English proficiency status, socioeconomic status, grade), students' writing-related beliefs and affect, and students' writing proficiency as predictors of students' perceptions. Controlling for districts, students reporting more optimal classroom climate also reported higher usability, usefulness, and desirability for MI Write. Also, model results revealed that eighth graders, students with limited English proficiency, and students of lower socioeconomic status perceived MI Write relatively more useable; students with lower socioeconomic status also perceived MI Write relatively more useful and desirable. Students who liked writing more and more strongly believed that writing is a recursive process viewed MI Write as more useable, useful, and desirable. Students with greater writing proficiency viewed MI Write as less useable and useful; writing proficiency was not related to desirability perceptions. We conclude with a discussion of implications and future directions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中学生对自动化写作评价看法的预测因素
本研究考察了中学生对自动写作评价(AWE)系统 MI Write 的看法。我们从定量和定性两个方面总结了学生对 MI Write 的可用性、有用性和可取性的看法。然后,我们估算了分层入口回归模型,将学区背景、课堂氛围、人口统计因素(即性别、特殊教育状况、英语水平有限状况、社会经济状况、年级)、学生的写作相关信念和情感以及学生的写作水平作为学生看法的预测因素。在控制地区因素的情况下,课堂气氛较好的学生对多元智能写作的可用性、有用性和可取性的评价也较高。此外,模型结果显示,八年级学生、英语水平有限的学生和社会经济地位较低的学生认为多元智能书面材料的可用性相对更高;社会经济地位较低的学生也认为多元智能书面材料的有用性和可取性相对更高。更喜欢写作和更坚信写作是一个递归过程的学生认为多元智能写作法更可用、更有用和更可取。写作水平较高的学生认为多元智能写作的可用性和实用性较低;写作水平与可取性的看法无关。最后,我们将讨论其影响和未来发展方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Computers & Education
Computers & Education 工程技术-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
27.10
自引率
5.80%
发文量
204
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: Computers & Education seeks to advance understanding of how digital technology can improve education by publishing high-quality research that expands both theory and practice. The journal welcomes research papers exploring the pedagogical applications of digital technology, with a focus broad enough to appeal to the wider education community.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board From experience to empathy: An empathetic VR-based learning approach to improving EFL learners’ empathy and writing performance Bridging computer and education sciences: A systematic review of automated emotion recognition in online learning environments Navigating elementary EFL speaking skills with generative AI chatbots: Exploring individual and paired interactions Investigating behavioral and cognitive patterns among high-performers and low-performers in Co-viewing video lectures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1