The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Students' behavioral engagement with AWE feedback tells little about whether students have adopted cognitive and metacognitive strategies to notice, evaluate and improve their writing.
“As Stevenson and Phakiti (2014) have noted, students' behavioral engagement with AWE feedback (using AWE feedback to revise their drafts) tells us little about whether students have adopted cognitive and metacognitive strategies to notice, evaluate and finally improve their writing.”
From Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing (2018) · cites this paper as Stevenson and Phakiti (2014)
Cites
The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 · Cited by 4,910 · see citing works
The impact of computer-based feedback on students' written work?
El Ebyary, K., & Windeatt, S. (2010) · International Journal of English Studies · doi:10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119231 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
EFL business writing behaviors in differing feedback environments
Warden, C. A. (2000) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00141 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring
Mizumoto, A., & Eguchi, M. (2023) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100050 · Cited by 647 · see citing works
Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing
Zhang, Z. (., & Hyland, K. (2018) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004 · Cited by 546 · see citing works
Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students’ writing
Steiss, J., Tate, T., Graham, S., Cruz, J., Hebert, M., Wang, J., Moon, Y., Tseng, W., Warschauer, M., & Olson, C. B. (2024) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894 · Cited by 509 · see citing works
Guo, K., & Wang, D. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0 · Cited by 449 · see citing works
Koltovskaia, S. (2020) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450 · Cited by 447 · see citing works
Link, S., Mehrzad, M., & Rahimi, M. (2022) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323 · Cited by 275 · see citing works
Automated written corrective feedback: how well can students make use of it?
Ranalli, J. (2018) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for learning and issues of trust
Ranalli, J. (2021) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100816 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Automated Writing Evaluation and Feedback: Multiple Metrics of Efficacy
Wilson, J., & Roscoe, R. D. (2020) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/0735633119830764 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Automated feedback and writing: a multi-level meta-analysis of effects on students' performance
Fleckenstein, J., Liebenow, L. W., & Meyer, J. (2023) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1162454 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
“Especially for writing complex and long texts, the evidence of the effectiveness of automated feedback has been described heterogeneously (Stevenson and Phakiti, 2014; McNamara et al., 2015; Strobl et al., 2019).”
BackgroundWilson, J., Ahrendt, C., Fudge, E. A., Raiche, A., Beard, G., & MacArthur, C. (2021) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104208 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Exploring ChatGPT-supported teacher feedback in the EFL context
Han, J., & Li, M. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103502 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Shi, H., Chai, C. S., Zhou, S., & Aubrey, S. (2026) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2025.2454541 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Palermo, C., & Thomson, M. M. (2018) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.07.002 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Roscoe, R. D., Wilson, J., Johnson, A. C., & Mayra, C. R. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.076 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Wei, P., Wang, X., & Dong, H. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1249991 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
How Teacher and Grammarly Feedback Complement One Another in Myanmar EFL Students’ Writing
Thi, N. K., & Nikolov, M. (2022) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-021-00625-2 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback to Improve L2 Writing Skills: A Meta-Analysis
Mohsen, M. A. (2022) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331211064066 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Shen, C., Shi, P., Guo, J., Xu, S., & Tian, J. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1258286 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Stevenson, Marie
- Venue
- Assessing Writing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-01
- Volume
- 19
- Pages
- 51-65
- ISSN
- 1075-2935 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1977120130
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 12
- FWCI
- 27.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Assessing Writing (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Keywords
- automated feedback, automated writing evaluation, writing quality, writing skills, written expression, error correction, writing instruction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
