{"title":"针对英语学习者的编辑辅助工具验证","authors":"Bronwyn Lamond, Todd Cunningham","doi":"10.1108/jet-04-2021-0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeEditing assistance software programs are computer-based tools that check and make suggestions for the grammar, spelling and style of a piece of writing. These tools are becoming more popular as recommendations for students who struggle with written expression, such as English language learners (ELLs). The purpose of the present study is to compare the performance of four different programs with embedded editing assistance tools in their ability to identify errors in the writing of ELLs.Design/methodology/approachRepeated measures ANOVAs were conducted to determine whether there were differences in the number of errors (i.e. spelling, grammar, punctuation and errors that change the meaning of the text) identified by editing assistance programs (i.e. Grammarly, Ginger, Microsoft Word, Google Docs and human raters) for writing by ELLs.FindingsThe results of the present study indicate that the four programs did not differ in their identification of spelling errors. None of the editing assistance programs identified as many errors as the human raters; therefore, editing assistance cannot yet replace effective human editing for ELLs.Research limitations/implicationsLimitations with the present study include manual verification of errors flagged by editing programs, multiple raters, a small sample size and a young sample of students.Practical implicationsThe paper includes practical factors to consider when integrating editing assistance software into the classroom, including the development needs of students, the impact of students' first language and student training on the technology.Originality/valueThis paper provides school psychologists, teachers and other professionals working with students with specific, evidence-based recommendations for implementation of editing assistance AT.","PeriodicalId":42168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Enabling Technologies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Editing assistance tool validation for English language learners\",\"authors\":\"Bronwyn Lamond, Todd Cunningham\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jet-04-2021-0020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeEditing assistance software programs are computer-based tools that check and make suggestions for the grammar, spelling and style of a piece of writing. These tools are becoming more popular as recommendations for students who struggle with written expression, such as English language learners (ELLs). The purpose of the present study is to compare the performance of four different programs with embedded editing assistance tools in their ability to identify errors in the writing of ELLs.Design/methodology/approachRepeated measures ANOVAs were conducted to determine whether there were differences in the number of errors (i.e. spelling, grammar, punctuation and errors that change the meaning of the text) identified by editing assistance programs (i.e. Grammarly, Ginger, Microsoft Word, Google Docs and human raters) for writing by ELLs.FindingsThe results of the present study indicate that the four programs did not differ in their identification of spelling errors. None of the editing assistance programs identified as many errors as the human raters; therefore, editing assistance cannot yet replace effective human editing for ELLs.Research limitations/implicationsLimitations with the present study include manual verification of errors flagged by editing programs, multiple raters, a small sample size and a young sample of students.Practical implicationsThe paper includes practical factors to consider when integrating editing assistance software into the classroom, including the development needs of students, the impact of students' first language and student training on the technology.Originality/valueThis paper provides school psychologists, teachers and other professionals working with students with specific, evidence-based recommendations for implementation of editing assistance AT.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Enabling Technologies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Enabling Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jet-04-2021-0020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Enabling Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jet-04-2021-0020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Editing assistance tool validation for English language learners
PurposeEditing assistance software programs are computer-based tools that check and make suggestions for the grammar, spelling and style of a piece of writing. These tools are becoming more popular as recommendations for students who struggle with written expression, such as English language learners (ELLs). The purpose of the present study is to compare the performance of four different programs with embedded editing assistance tools in their ability to identify errors in the writing of ELLs.Design/methodology/approachRepeated measures ANOVAs were conducted to determine whether there were differences in the number of errors (i.e. spelling, grammar, punctuation and errors that change the meaning of the text) identified by editing assistance programs (i.e. Grammarly, Ginger, Microsoft Word, Google Docs and human raters) for writing by ELLs.FindingsThe results of the present study indicate that the four programs did not differ in their identification of spelling errors. None of the editing assistance programs identified as many errors as the human raters; therefore, editing assistance cannot yet replace effective human editing for ELLs.Research limitations/implicationsLimitations with the present study include manual verification of errors flagged by editing programs, multiple raters, a small sample size and a young sample of students.Practical implicationsThe paper includes practical factors to consider when integrating editing assistance software into the classroom, including the development needs of students, the impact of students' first language and student training on the technology.Originality/valueThis paper provides school psychologists, teachers and other professionals working with students with specific, evidence-based recommendations for implementation of editing assistance AT.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Enabling Technologies (JET) seeks to provide a strong, insightful, international, and multi-disciplinary evidence-base in health, social care, and education. This focus is applied to how technologies can be enabling for children, young people and adults in varied and different aspects of their lives. The focus remains firmly on reporting innovations around how technologies are used and evaluated in practice, and the impact that they have on the people using them. In addition, the journal has a keen focus on drawing out practical implications for users and how/why technology may have a positive impact. This includes messages for users, practitioners, researchers, stakeholders and caregivers (in the broadest sense). The impact of research in this arena is vital and therefore we are committed to publishing work that helps draw this out; thus providing implications for practice. JET aims to raise awareness of available and developing technologies and their uses in health, social care and education for a wide and varied readership. The areas in which technologies can be enabling for the scope of JET include, but are not limited to: Communication and interaction, Learning, Independence and autonomy, Identity and culture, Safety, Health, Care and support, Wellbeing, Quality of life, Access to services.