Abstract
In writing studies research, automated writing evaluation technology is typically examined for a specific, often narrow purpose: to evaluate a particular writing improvement measure, to mine data for changes in writing performance, or to demonstrate the effectiveness of a single technology and accompanying validity arguments. This article adopts a broader perspective and offers a standpoint theory of action for formative automated writing evaluation (fAWE). Following presentation of the features of our standpoint theory of action, we describe our two study sites, and each instructor documents her experiences using the fAWE application (app), Writing Mentor® (WM). One instructor analyzes experiences using the app with nontraditional adult learners to provide career pathway access through a high school equivalency (HSE) credential awarded by successful completion of the GED® (General Educational Development Test) or of the HiSET® (High School Equivalency Test). A second instructor analyzes WM experiences working with a diverse population of two-year college students enrolled in first-year writing. These instructors’ experiences are used to propose two theory-of-action frameworks based on the instructors’ standpoints, with particular attention to fAWE components, pedagogies, and consequences. To explore the representativeness of these two case studies, we also analyze student feature use and self-reported self-efficacy data from a general sample (N = 5,595) collected through WM user engagement. We conclude by emphasizing the pedagogical potential of writing technologies, the advantages of instructionally situating these technologies, and the value of using standpoint theories of action as a way to anticipate local impact.
- Journal
- Journal of Response to Writing
- Published
- 2021-06-09
- CompPile
- Open Access
- OA PDF Gold
- Topics
- Export
- BibTeX RIS
Citation Context
Citation data not yet available for this article.
Citation data is not available for Journal of Response to Writing. This journal's publisher does not deposit reference lists with CrossRef.
Related Articles
-
Pedagogy Oct 2025modern rhetorical theory rhetorical criticism genre theory cultural rhetorics first-year composition writing pedagogy advanced composition creative writing writing across the curriculum graduate education two-year college service learning teacher development technical communication professional writing labor and working conditions archival research multimodality artificial intelligence literacy studies race and writing gender and writing disability studies literary studies editorial matter
-
Pedagogy Oct 2024rhetorical criticism first-year composition writing pedagogy basic writing writing across the curriculum graduate education two-year college service learning teacher development revision argument collaborative writing assessment writing program administration multimodality multilingual writers literacy studies race and writing disability studies community literacy editorial matter
-
Double Helix Jan 2024Challenging Assessment Practices, and the Need for Multimodal Applications to Service Learning in First-Year Composition ↗Kimberly A. Bain
-
Pedagogy Oct 2023rhetorical criticism first-year composition writing pedagogy writing across the curriculum two-year college teacher development collaborative writing assessment writing centers qualitative research multimodality literacy studies race and writing gender and writing disability studies affect and writing literary studies book reviews editorial matter
-
The Peer Review Sep 2021Russell Mayo; Russell Mayo; Elise Dixon; Eric Camarillorhetorical criticism cultural rhetorics first-year composition writing pedagogy two-year college teacher development argument collaborative writing assessment writing centers peer tutoring professional writing digital rhetoric multimodality social media online writing instruction race and writing disability studies editorial matter