Middle school teachers’ implementation and perceptions of automated writing evaluation

IF 4.1 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Joshua Wilson , Amanda Delgado , Corey Palermo , Tania M. Cruz Cordero , Matthew C. Myers , Halley Eacker , Andrew Potter , Jessica Coles , Saimou Zhang
{"title":"Middle school teachers’ implementation and perceptions of automated writing evaluation","authors":"Joshua Wilson ,&nbsp;Amanda Delgado ,&nbsp;Corey Palermo ,&nbsp;Tania M. Cruz Cordero ,&nbsp;Matthew C. Myers ,&nbsp;Halley Eacker ,&nbsp;Andrew Potter ,&nbsp;Jessica Coles ,&nbsp;Saimou Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Despite research supporting the efficacy of Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) in improving writing outcomes, inconsistent implementation by teachers raises concerns about the efficacy of these systems in practice. However, little is known about what factors influence teachers’ implementation and perceptions of AWE. This study examined the relationship between teachers’ implementation and perceptions of the MI Write AWE system, seeking to identify actionable factors that could enhance AWE implementation and acceptance in the future. A mixed-methods design was utilized, combining quantitative analysis of usage logs and survey data with qualitative insights from focus groups and interviews with 19 teachers who participated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing the efficacy of MI Write on students’ writing outcomes. Quantitative data were subjected to descriptive and non-parametric statistical analyses, while qualitative data underwent a deductive coding process, offering an integrated view of MI Write's use and educators’ perceptions. Teachers implemented MI Write variably and not to the extent expected of them within the RCT, but they did report generally positive attitudes towards MI Write. Findings indicated that positive perceptions of system usability and usefulness may be insufficient to promote effective implementation. Instead, ecological factors such as curricular alignment and the challenge of incorporating AWE into existing workload, administrative support, and broader social and educational policy appeared as factors influencing implementation. Findings emphasize that teachers’ implementation and perceptions of AWE are dependent on a range of contextual elements beyond mere system functionality, suggesting that successful adoption requires addressing broader ecological considerations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100322,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Education Open","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100231"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers and Education Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666557324000715","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite research supporting the efficacy of Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) in improving writing outcomes, inconsistent implementation by teachers raises concerns about the efficacy of these systems in practice. However, little is known about what factors influence teachers’ implementation and perceptions of AWE. This study examined the relationship between teachers’ implementation and perceptions of the MI Write AWE system, seeking to identify actionable factors that could enhance AWE implementation and acceptance in the future. A mixed-methods design was utilized, combining quantitative analysis of usage logs and survey data with qualitative insights from focus groups and interviews with 19 teachers who participated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing the efficacy of MI Write on students’ writing outcomes. Quantitative data were subjected to descriptive and non-parametric statistical analyses, while qualitative data underwent a deductive coding process, offering an integrated view of MI Write's use and educators’ perceptions. Teachers implemented MI Write variably and not to the extent expected of them within the RCT, but they did report generally positive attitudes towards MI Write. Findings indicated that positive perceptions of system usability and usefulness may be insufficient to promote effective implementation. Instead, ecological factors such as curricular alignment and the challenge of incorporating AWE into existing workload, administrative support, and broader social and educational policy appeared as factors influencing implementation. Findings emphasize that teachers’ implementation and perceptions of AWE are dependent on a range of contextual elements beyond mere system functionality, suggesting that successful adoption requires addressing broader ecological considerations.
初中教师对自动化写作评价的实施和看法
尽管有研究支持自动写作评价(AWE)在提高写作成果方面的功效,但教师在实施过程中的不一致性引起了人们对这些系统在实践中的功效的担忧。然而,对于哪些因素会影响教师对 AWE 的实施和看法却知之甚少。本研究考察了教师对 MI Write AWE 系统的实施和看法之间的关系,试图找出可操作的因素,以提高 AWE 在未来的实施和接受程度。本研究采用了混合方法设计,将使用日志和调查数据的定量分析与焦点小组的定性分析以及对参与随机对照试验(RCT)的 19 名教师的访谈相结合,测试了 MI Write 对学生写作成果的影响。对定量数据进行了描述性和非参数统计分析,对定性数据进行了演绎编码,从而提供了关于多元智能写作的使用情况和教育工作者的看法的综合视角。教师对 MI Write 的使用情况参差不齐,也没有达到 RCT 所期望的程度,但他们对 MI Write 的态度总体上是积极的。研究结果表明,对系统可用性和有用性的积极看法可能不足以促进有效实施。取而代之的是影响实施的生态因素,如课程调整、将亚博app客服融入现有工作量的挑战、行政支持以及更广泛的社会和教育政策。研究结果强调,除了系统的功能外,教师对 AWE 的实施和看法还取决于一系列环境因素,这表明成功采用 AWE 需要考虑到更广泛的生态因素。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信