Issues in transitioning from the traditional blue-book to computer-based writing assessment

Hunsu, Nathaniel J.

doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2015.01.006

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ongoing development of grammar/style and spelling checkers has prompted several scholars to revisit these tools and their pedagogic uses (Buck 2008, Figueredo and Varnhagen 2006, McGee and Ericsson 2002, Potter and Fuller 2008, Vernon 2000. Investigations which compare the processes of composing by hand or on a computer explore their respective effects on the cognitive process (Medimorec and Risko 2016), early writing outcomes (Wollscheid, Sjaastad and Tømte 2016), and the implications for time-constrained assessments (Hunsu 2015, Mogey and Fluck 2015, Whithaus, Harrison and Midyette 2008. While research in the latter field assumes a widespread familiarity with word-processing and the supersession of handwriting with keyboarding skills, it also acknowledges that not all students are equally comfortable composing on a computer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Can Screen Capture Reveal About Students’ Use of Software Tools When Undertaking a Paraphrasing Task?

Bailey

Withers

2018

JAW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous classroom observations, and examination of students' written drafts, had suggested that when summarising or paraphrasing source texts, some of our students were using software tools (for example the copy-paste function and synonym lookup) in possibly unhelpful ways. To test these impressions we used screen capture software to record 20 university students paraphrasing a short text using the word-processing package on a networked PC, and analysed how they utilised software to fulfil the task. Participants displayed variable proficiency in using word-processing tools, and very few accessed external sites. The most frequently enlisted tool was the synonym finder. Some of the better writers (assessed in terms of their paraphrase quality) availed themselves little of software aids. We discuss how teachers of academic writing could help students make more efficient and judicious use of commonly available tools, and suggest further uses of screen capture in teaching and researching academic writing.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Can Screen Capture Reveal About Students’ Use of Software Tools When Undertaking a Paraphrasing Task?

Bailey

Withers

2018

JAW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lee, 2002). Hunsu et al (2015) point out that the key factors affecting writing outcomes are the characteristics of participants, such as language proficiency (Breland et al, 2005) and competence with word processors (Bridgeman & Cooper, 1998;Harrington et al, 2000;Russell, 1999;Wolfe & Manalo, 2004). However, typing skill or experience with word processors may be less of a concern to students nowadays, with their access to computers and e-devices (Hunsu, 2015).…”

Section: Typewriting Chinese With Pinyin Input and Evaluation Of Typewritten Textsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, comments such as "really tried hard" for handwritten essays demonstrate the empathy of evaluators. For the exact reason that the effect of the two kinds of presentation (handwritten and typewritten) on evaluators is unclear, as pointed out by Hunsu (2015), the current study focuses on the empathy effect mentioned in previous research. In addition, both Harrington et al (2000) and Powers et al (1994) advocate that a way to reduce the evaluation discrepancy is to explicitly train essay raters with extra emphasis on essay quality rather than the method of writing.…”

Section: Typewriting Chinese With Pinyin Input and Evaluation Of Typewritten Textsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chinese Writing Composition Among CFL Learners: A Comparison Between Handwriting and Typewriting

Zhang

2019

Computers and Composition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Situated in the context of CFL (Chinese as a foreign language), the current study examines and compares texts produced by twelve pre-intermediate CFL learners using both pen-and-paper and the pinyin input system. The participants were also invited for interviews to investigate their attitudes towards handwriting and typewriting. Because of the ease of use of the pinyin input system, CFL learners tend to prefer it over writing by hand when composing lengthy texts. Based on the evaluations of fifteen professional CFL teachers, the typewritten texts were rated higher than the handwritten ones. Using the self-report empathy test, there was no significant correlation between an evaluator's empathy and his/her rating for the texts, whether composed by hand or with pinyin input. Pedagogically, typewriting might better assist Chinese language learning after handwriting has been introduced and practised among non-beginner CFL learners. The empathy effect on handwriting reported in previous literature is not found in the study. The study goes beyond the factors influencing typewriting and typewritten essays, to encourage future research investigating when to introduce computer-based writing and how it would best assist in language learning.

show abstract

“…On the contrary, another line of research has identified counterevidence for the positive relationship between onscreen annotation and rating quality. For instance, Hunsu (2015) argued that raters were also readers; when marking scripts for a test, raters were required to read these written texts carefully and went on to select a score that accurately reflected the quality. Given that raters' reading behaviors may differ in the two scoring modes, it is quite likely that raters scored scanned essays and their paper originals at differing levels of severity.…”

Section: Comparability Of Oss Mode and Pbs Modementioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the continual advances in information technology and the widespread use of the Internet, many test development agencies have replaced traditional paper-based scoring (PBS) with onscreen scoring (OSS), also known as onscreen marking (OSM; Bennett, 2003;Chen, White, McCloskey, Soroui, & Chun, 2011;Coniam, 2011b;Hunsu, 2015). The two modes differ greatly in how testees' writing is presented to human raters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Computers on Marking Behaviors and Assessment: A Many-Facet Rasch Measurement Analysis of Essays by EFL College Students

2019

Sage Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study employed a mixed-design approach and the Many-Facet Rasch Measurement (MFRM) framework to investigate whether rater bias occurred between the onscreen scoring (OSS) mode and the paper-based scoring (PBS) mode. Nine human raters analytically marked scanned scripts and paper scripts using a six-category (i.e., six-criterion) rating rubric. Interviews with these raters were then conducted to gather their reflections concerning the marking experiences in the two modes. Software program FACETS was employed to estimate raters' scores, with the results indicating that (a) four raters marked the scanned scripts more severely than they did the paper scripts, whereas the remaining four raters exhibited an opposite tendency; (b) the only rater whose composite scores were comparable between the two modes still awarded harsher scores to the category of Mechanics in PBS mode; and (c) the category of Mechanics was scored more harshly in OSS mode, whereas Topic Development/Support was scored more severely in PBS mode. Analyses of quantitative and qualitative data indicated that computers affected raters' marking behaviors and their assessment, assuming a role in causing scoring bias. Implications for rater training were provided.

show abstract

Issues in transitioning from the traditional blue-book to computer-based writing assessment

Cited by 8 publications

References 24 publications

What Can Screen Capture Reveal About Students’ Use of Software Tools When Undertaking a Paraphrasing Task?

What Can Screen Capture Reveal About Students’ Use of Software Tools When Undertaking a Paraphrasing Task?

Chinese Writing Composition Among CFL Learners: A Comparison Between Handwriting and Typewriting

The Impact of Computers on Marking Behaviors and Assessment: A Many-Facet Rasch Measurement Analysis of Essays by EFL College Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About