Affiliation:
1. Inonu University, Turkey
2. Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University, Turkey
Abstract
The current study seeks to investigate whether ChatGPT 3.5 can be used as an aid to help diminish the teachers' workload in assessing writing. To this aim, a mixed-methods research design was employed for the study. Randomly selected, 20 descriptive essays written by freshman student teachers of English Language Teaching were scored by an experienced human rater and ChatGPT 3.5. An adapted ‘descriptive essay rubric' by the researchers was used to assess the descriptive essays of the student teachers. The quantitative aspect of the study involved frequency and percentage analysis, while the qualitative dimension centered on analyzing the written feedback provided by both ChatGPT and the human rater. The findings showed that there is a disagreement between ChatGPT 3.5 and the human rater. Furthermore, there are some problems with the written feedback it provides. It is clear that it is rapid in terms of providing feedback. Thus, it is recommended that ChatGPT 3.5 can be employed as a tool under the supervision of teachers.
Reference35 articles.
1. Automated essay scoring with e-rater v. 2.;Y.Attali;The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment,2006
2. Balester, V. (2012). How writing rubrics fail: Toward a multicultural model. In A. I. & M. P. (Eds.), Race and Writing Assessment, (pp. 63-77). Peter Lang.
3. A Computer Wrote this Paper: What ChatGPT Means for Education, Research, and Writing
4. A Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failures
5. Can linguists distinguish between ChatGPT/AI and human writing?: A study of research ethics and academic publishing