BackgroundWe examined linguistic features in fourth graders' narrative and opinion writing and their relations to writing quality. We analysed narrative and opinion essays in terms of lexical sophistication and diversity as well as syntactic complexity, syntactic accuracy, and morphological complexity.MethodsData were from English‐speaking students in Grade 4 (N = 129; 50% female) in the United States, majority of whom were from low socioeconomic status background. Paired t tests were used to analyse differences of linguistic features between the two genres. Hierarchical regression models were run to examine how language features are related to writing quality.ResultsWords in the narrative task were more diverse and included more diverse verbal inflectional morphemes than those in the opinion task; syntactic complexity was significantly greater in the opinion genre, manifested by longer T‐units and the more frequent use of adverbial and relative clauses. Approximately 80% of T‐units were grammatical and 20% were ungrammatical. Syntactic accuracy and verbal morphological complexity of words were positively related to writing quality in the narrative task. Additionally, syntactic complexity measured by clauses per T‐unit, verbal and nominal morphological complexity of words were uniquely related to writing quality in the opinion genre.ConclusionsThe findings highlight the limited extent to which Grade 4 students use complex syntax in their writing. The study also supports the critical role of linguistic features in writing quality and shows both similarities and differences in language use in two important writing genres, narrative and opinion, in elementary grades.

Background: Offering students formative feedback on their writing is an effective way to facilitate writing development. Recent advances in AI (i.e., ChatGPT) may function as an automated writing evaluation tool, increasing the amount of feedback students receive and diminishing the burden on teachers to provide frequent feedback to large classes. Aims: We examined the ability of generative AI (ChatGPT) to provide formative feedback. We compared the quality of human and AI feedback by scoring the feedback each provided on secondary student essays. We scored the degree to which feedback (a) was criteria-based, (b) provided clear directions for improvement, (c) was accurate, (d) prioritized essential features, and (e) used a supportive tone. Sample: 200 pieces of human-generated formative feedback and 200 pieces of AI-generated formative feedback for the same essays. Methods: We examined whether ChatGPT and human feedback differed in quality for the whole sample, for compositions that differed in overall quality, and for native English speakers and English learners by comparing descriptive statistics and effect sizes. Results: Human raters were better at providing high-quality feedback to students in all categories other than criteria-based. AI and humans showed differences in feedback quality based on essay quality. Feedback did not vary by language status for humans or AI. Conclusion: Well-trained evaluators provided higher quality feedback than ChatGPT. Considering the ease of generating feedback through ChatGPT and its overall quality, generative AI may still be useful in some contexts, particularly in formative early drafts or instances where a well-trained educator is unavailable.

Download This Paper Open PDF in Browser Add Paper to My Library Share: Permalink Using these links will ensure access to this page indefinitely Copy URL Copy DOI

Download This Paper Open PDF in Browser Add Paper to My Library Share: Permalink Using these links will ensure access to this page indefinitely Copy URL Copy DOI

This study examined the extent of perspective taking and language features represented in secondary students' text-based analytical writing. We investigated (1) whether perspective taking is related to writing quality, accounting for language features in writing; (2) whether students' English learner status is related to perspectives represented in their writing; and (3) whether the relation between perspective taking and writing quality differs by the level of language features (e.g., syntactic diversity, appropriate word usage, and tone). Secondary students' text-based analytical essays (N= 195, Grades 7-12) were coded for perspective taking and language features and analyzed using multiple regression. There was a higher frequency of own-side perspectives than dual perspectives. Dual perspective was related to writing quality after accounting for student demographics and grade levels. However, the relation was no longer statistically significant when language features were accounted for. English learners exhibited significantly less own-side perspectives compared to their English-only counterparts, but there was no difference in dual perspectives, which might be due to overall low frequency of dual perspectives represented in students' text-based analytical writing. The findings suggest the roles of both perspective taking and language features in quality writing.