Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing

May combine two claims.

AWE feedback has discernible advantages over teacher feedback in terms of timeliness, convenience, multiple drafting, and even potential learner autonomy, which have also been shown in previous studies.

“AWE feedback has discernible advantages over teacher feedback in terms of timeliness, convenience, multiple drafting, and even potential learner autonomy, which have also been shown in the previous studies (Chen & Cheng, 2008;Dikli, 2006).”

• cites Chen & Cheng, 2008 sourcePartly supported

  The Discussion (p. 14) says AWE feedback is delivered instantly, and the Pedagogical Foundation (pp. 3–4) describes repeated drafting and the theoretical potential for learner autonomy. The paper does not establish convenience as an advantage over teacher feedback; it also says whether AWE develops learner autonomy is uncertain and emphasizes the need for human feedback (Discussion, p. 14). (LLM, conf=0.84)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Dikli, 2006Partly supported

  The Summary and Discussion section says AES systems provide immediate feedback, easing the time burden of teacher responses, and let students save and revise successive drafts. The MY Access! section describes a web-based tool intended to make writing more feasible. Our copy does not establish increased learner autonomy or show that these advantages were demonstrated in prior studies. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

David looked at online dictionaries and corrected some spelling errors and nouns from the AWE feedback but was not sure how to correct the others, and did not ask classmates for help because he felt embarrassed with the score.

“I looked at online dictionaries and corrected some spelling errors and nouns from the feedback but I was not sure how to correct the others… I didn't ask my classmates for help because I felt embarrassed with the score.”

May combine two claims.

Although Flora turned to the same online dictionary as David to improve her writing, she went beyond this by seeking to diagnose what was incorrect.

“Although she turned to the same online dictionary as David to improve her writing, she went beyond this by seeking to diagnose what was incorrect.”

May combine two claims.

Questionnaire data from 206 students showed that many students did not value teacher feedback, although the more highly motivated students claimed that they tried to engage with it and incorporate it into their drafts.

“The questionnaire data from 206 students showed that many students did not value teacher feedback, although the more highly motivated students claimed that they tried to engage with it and incorporate it into their drafts.”

May combine two claims.

David only resubmitted his essay once after receiving AWE feedback and spent less than 14 minutes on the task.

“We can see in the screenshot in Figure 6 that David only resubmitted his essay once after receiving AWE feedback and only spent less than 14 minutes on the task.”

May combine two claims.

The highly engaged learner (Flora) outperformed the moderately engaged learner (David) in her response to both sources of feedback as well as in making more improvements to her text.

“This detailed description of how the two learners engaged with both teacher and AWE feedback on their writing shows that the highly engaged learner (Flora) outperformed the moderately engaged learner (David) in her response to both sources of feedback as well as in making more improvements to her text.”

May combine two claims.

Flora demonstrated deep and full engagement with both teacher and AWE feedback on her writing.

“We characterise Flora as a student who demonstrated deep and full engagement with both teacher and AWE feedback on her writing.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In Flora's case, improvement of the score served as a positive confirmation that she was on the right track.

“In Flora's case, she also mentioned that the improvement of the score served as a positive confirmation, telling her she was on the right track.”

May combine two claims.

Teacher feedback did not allow the same kind of flexibility as AWE feedback, and the absence of immediate feedback created greater uncertainty when the learners came to correct errors and rewrite their texts.

“In contrast, teacher feedback did not allow the same kind of flexibility and the absence of immediate feedback created greater uncertainty then the learners came to correct errors and rewrite their texts.”

May combine two claims.

David was less adept at revising to effectively respond to both sources of feedback, failing to correct the grammatical errors noted by the AWE feedback, and so was demotivated to work on the second draft.

“David was less adept at revising to effectively respond to both sources of feedback, failing to correct the grammatical errors noted by the AWE feedback, for example, and so was demotivated to work on the second draft.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The AWE system's diagnosis of errors is accurate.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Flora substituted simplistic terms and phrases with more sophisticated ones.

“She also substituted simplistic terms and phrases with more sophisticated ones.”

May combine two claims.

Flora deliberately ignored some errors noted by AWE feedback, making no revisions, to avoid being overwhelmed by the thinking and revising process.

“Some errors noted by the AWE feedback Flora deliberately ignored, making no revisions at all.She did this intentionally to avoid being overwhelmed by the thinking and revising process.”

May combine two claims.

Flora effectively corrected all linguistic errors explicitly identified by the teacher, but missed the one error the teacher only implicitly indicated.

“Firstly, Flora effectively corrected all the linguistic errors explicitly identified by the teacher, but missed the one error which the teacher only implicitly indicated.”

May combine two claims.

Flora evinced a strong emotional reaction to the feedback from both sources; teacher feedback elicited admiration for the teacher's assistance as well as some shame about the errors she had made, encouraging revision; she also responded affectively to the more neutral delivered commentary of the AWE programme and the upgraded scores on her drafts, each gain encouraging her to improve further.

“Flora evinced a strong emotional reaction to the feedback from both sources, as the teacher feedback elicited admiration for the teacher's assistance as well as some same about the errors she had made, encouraging revision.She also responded affectively to the more neutral delivered commentary of the AWE programme and the upgraded scores on her drafts, each gain encouraging her to improve further.”

May combine two claims.

Flora resubmitted her essay 13 times, and her score rose from 79 to 90 out of 100.

“Figure 4, from the AWE record, shows that Flora resubmitted her essay 13 times, and the score rose from 79 to 90 (100 as the full score).”

May combine two claims.

In David's second draft, out of 35 errors seven were corrected properly, five were deleted, one was substituted, one correction was added, and 21 errors were not addressed.

“We found a very limited range of revision operations in the second draft and out of 35 errors seven were corrected properly.Five errors were deleted, one was substituted, one correction was added and 21 errors were not addressed.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The AWE system's diagnosis of errors is accurate.

May combine two claims.

David was overwhelmed by the errors identified in his work and discouraged by his inability to respond to all but the most explicitly corrected of them.

“He was overwhelmed by the errors identified in his work and discouraged by his inability to respond to all but the most explicitly corrected of them.”

May combine two claims.

Flora enjoyed more autonomy when she responded to AWE feedback, which allowed her to regulate her revising time and the pace of her rewriting according to her own learning plan.

“we found that Flora enjoyed more autonomy when she responded to AWE feedback.This allowed her to regulate her revising time and the pace of her rewriting according to her own learning plan.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

David was overwhelmed by the amount of corrective feedback and felt helpless about how to address the problems.

“David said that he was overwhelmed by the amount of corrective feedback and felt helpless about how to address the problems.”

May combine two claims.

David's response to both sources of feedback was more passive and demonstrated lower levels of self-starting and participation.

“His response to both sources of feedback was more passive, and demonstrated lower levels of self-starting and participation.”

May combine two claims.

Flora rewrote her draft numerous times in the multiple-draft assignment, not only correcting errors but improving the style and explicitness of the text.

“Most conspicuously, Flora rewrote her draft numerous times in the multiple-draft assignment, not only correcting errors but improving the style and explicitness of the text.”

May combine two claims.

The teacher did not advise the students how many times he expected them to revise their essays or the overall score he expected them to get.

“He also mentioned in the interview that the teacher did not advise the students how many times he expected them to revise their essays or the overall score he expected them to get.”

May combine two claims.

Neither student was used to receiving detailed teacher feedback so they were often unsure about how to engage with it.

“Neither student was used to receiving detailed teacher feedback so they were often unsure about how to engage with it.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

David expressed confusion over the teacher feedback in the interview.

“In the interview, David expressed his confusion over this feedback:”

May combine two claims.

Flora did not revise her draft immediately after receiving AWE feedback on her first draft but started the following day, with a five-hour gap between her second and third submission.

“When she got the AWE feedback on her first draft, Flora did not revise her draft immediately but started the following day, with a five-hour gap between her second and third submission.”

May combine two claims.

David appreciated the teacher feedback he received and had an affective connection with the teacher.

“In the interview, David did say that he appreciated the feedback he received and there was obviously an affective connection with the teacher”

May combine two claims.

Compared to David, Flora was more active in that she invested more time-on-task and more positive attitudes in the revision process.

“Compared to David, Flora was more active in that she invested more time-on-task and more positive attitudes in the revision process.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Flora addressed confusing parts of her essay by deleting unnecessary words and sentences and adding more explanations to increase clarity.

“She also addressed confusing parts of her essay by deleting unnecessary words and sentences, and adding more explanations to increase clarity.”

May combine two claims.

David was confused by teacher feedback symbols (circles, underlines, and question marks) and did not know what the teacher meant.

“When I saw some circles, underlines, and question marks, I was actually bewildered.I didn't know what the teacher meant… I prefer to be told.I think the teacher should offer us more help on how to revise our essays.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

David felt very disappointed about the score of 69.5, had never got a score below 70, and felt unable to go back to change the essay.

“I felt very disappointed about the score.I never got a score below 70.It was so frustrating that I didn't feel able to go back to it again to change the essay.”

May combine two claims.

David felt embarrassed and demoralised by the low score he received from the AWE, and this discouraged his full engagement with it.

“While more facilitative and less directive than the teacher feedback, he felt embarrassed and demoralised by the low score he received from the AWE and this discouraged his full engagement with it.”

May combine two claims.

Neither reorganization nor rewriting was evident in David's revision of teacher feedback.

“Neither reorganization nor rewriting was evident.”

May combine two claims.

Flora is a higher proficiency student and had relatively little difficulty interpreting both teacher and AWE feedback on her work.

“Flora, in contrast, is a higher proficiency student and had relatively little difficulty interpreting both teacher and AWE feedback on her work.”

May combine two claims.

David's changes in response to AWE feedback were minimal and he neither reorganized nor rewrote any part of his essay.

“In all, the changes were minimal and he neither reorganized nor rewrote any part of his essay.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Revision operations such as deletion and correction are valid indicators of the depth of cognitive engagement.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In his second draft, instead of directly addressing the problem areas circled and underlined, David simply deleted some of the offending text.

“a close look at the second draft reveals that instead of directly addressing the problem areas circled and underlined, he simply deleted some of the offending text.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The teacher feedback symbols (circles, underlines, question marks) indicated problem areas in the student's text.

May combine two claims.

Flora took considerable time over her revisions, made numerous changes and submissions to AWE, and employed planning, goal-setting, monitoring, and evaluating.

“She took considerable time over her revisions, made numerous changes and submissions to the AWE and employed a repertoire of different stratagems: planning, goal-setting, monitoring, evaluating, and so on.”

May combine two claims.

These students varied in the techniques they were able to deploy, a factor related to their behavioural and cognitive engagement with feedback.

“These students varied in the techniques they were able to deploy, a factor related to their behavioural and cognitive engagement with feedback.”

May combine two claims.

David attempted to attend to teacher feedback and made revisions.

“So, behaviorally, David attempted to attend to the teacher feedback and made revisions”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Redundant words and phrases that were either circled or underlined were substituted with more concise ones.

“Redundant words and phrases that were either circled or underlined were substituted with more concise ones.”

May combine two claims.

Teacher feedback addressed more error types (16) than AWE feedback (8) in this study, although differences in the two assignments may have influenced this.

“Teacher feedback addressed more error types (16) than the AWE feedback (8), although differences in the two assignments may have influenced this, with factors such as difficulty and length causing students to commit different types of errors.”

May combine two claims.

This study shows that experienced ESL teachers can offer more comprehensive corrective feedback on student writing, giving feedback on such issues as number usage and abbreviation which tend to be outside the scope of AWE feedback routines.

“Moreover, this study shows that experienced ESL teachers can offer more comprehensive corrective feedback on student writing, giving feedback on such issues as number usage and abbreviation which tend to be outside the scope of AWE feedback routines.”

May combine two claims.

The different styles of engagement adopted by these students led the authors to identify one as a highly engaged learner and the other as a moderately engaged learner, and this helped them see how each responded to teacher and AWE feedback differently.

“The different styles of engagement adopted by these students led us to identify one as a highly engaged learner and the other as a moderately engaged learner, and this helped us to see how each responded to teacher and AWE feedback differently.”

May combine two claims.

As a highly engaged learner, Flora gravitated more towards 'goal-oriented learning' rather than 'performance-oriented learning', seeking to improve her skills and acquire knowledge rather than simply avoid making mistakes.

“As a highly engaged learner, Flora gravitated more towards”

May combine two claims.

David responded mechanically to both teacher and AWE feedback, with a preference for spoonfeeding and a sceptical attitude to automated feedback.

“In contrast, David, responded mechanically to both teacher and AWE feedback, with a preference for spoonfeeding and a sceptical attitude to automated feedback.”

May combine two claims.

The highly engaged learner tended to participate actively and reflect more deeply with both teacher and AWE feedback on her writing, while the moderately engaged learner was less motivated and showed less willingness to use the feedback he received from both sources.

“The highly engaged learner tended to participate actively and reflect more deeply with both teacher and AWE feedback on her writing, while the moderately engaged learner was less motivated and showed less willingness to use the feedback he received from both sources.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Engagement involves students devoting cognitive resources to understanding or memorizing feedback.

“Engagement also seems to involve students in devoting cognitive resources to understanding or memorizing the feedback they are given (Sachs & Polio, 2007).”

• cites Sachs & Polio, 2007Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

A great deal of research on feedback has focused on error correction and limited itself to particular modes of delivery.

“A great deal of this research, however, has focused on error correction and limited itself to particular modes of delivery, examining the effectiveness of teacher written feedback (Ferris, 1997), oral conferencing (Weissberg, 2006), peer feedback (Mendonca & Johnson, 1994) or machine marking (Warschauer & Ware, 2006).”

• cites Ferris, 1997 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Weissberg, 2006Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Mendonca & Johnson, 1994 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

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.”

• cites Stevenson and Phakiti (2014) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Students engaged only superficially with AWE feedback, typically submitting first drafts, making a few corrections after corrective feedback, and resubmitting as quickly as possible.

“Grimes (2005) also found that students engaged only superficially with AWE feedback and identified a typical revision pattern whereby students submitted their first drafts, made a few corrections after receiving corrective feedback, and resubmitted their drafts as quickly as possible.”

• cites Grimes (2005)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The quality of noticing, related to the depth of processing feedback, is a key factor in improvement in students' revisions.

“In their study of two L2 writers' engagement with teacher feedback given as reformulations, for example, Qi and Lapkin (2001) argue that the quality of noticing, related to the depth of processing feedback, is a key factor in improvement in students' revisions.”

• cites Qi and Lapkin (2001) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Affective factors affect the actions learners adopt in responding to feedback and their willingness to accept and retain feedback.

“They suggest that not only do affective factors affect the actions adopted by learners in responding to the feedback, they also have an impact on their willingness to accept and retain the feedback.”

• cites Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The bulk of AWE feedback research has focused on students' written products, with little attention paid to students' writing and revising process.

“The bulk of AWE feedback research, however, has focused on students' written products, with little attention paid to students' writing and revising process.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Student engagement is generally believed to correlate positively with academic achievement and has great potential to improve students' school outcomes.

“In summary, while open to multiple interpretations and beset by difficulties of measurement, student engagement is generally believed to correlate positively with academic achievement and has great potential to improve students' school outcomes.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Student engagement is malleable and can be affected by teachers and parents, and shaped by wider teaching practices and school policies.

“Encouraging is the fact that student engagement is malleable and can be affected by teachers and parents, and shaped by wider teaching practices and school policies (Fredricks et al., 2004;Willms, 2003).”

• cites Fredricks et al., 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Willms, 2003Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Engagement is a multidimensional construct.

“It is important to keep in mind that engagement is a multidimensional construct and student engagement with written feedback goes beyond error corrections.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Feedback on second language writing offers considerable learning benefits, providing writers with a sense of audience and an understanding of what readers value in a text.

“Feedback on second language writing is widely acknowledged to offer considerable learning benefits, providing writers with a sense of audience and an understanding what readers' value in a text (Goldstein, 2005;K. Hyland, 2016).”

• cites Goldstein, 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites K. Hyland, 2016Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Almost all previous research on student engagement looks at human feedback on writing, focuses on just one or two dimensions of engagement, or is narrowly confined to error corrections.

“These studies are provocative and inspirational, but almost all the previous research on student engagement looks at human feedback on writing, focuses on just one or two dimensions of engagement or is narrowly confined to error corrections.”

May combine two claims.

The two participants had the same AWE assignments and received the same teaching and feedback from the same teacher.

“This allowed us to ensure the two participants had the same AWE assignments and would receive the same teaching and feedback from the same teacher.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Teacher feedback points were identified and coded according to a modified version of Ferris's (2006) taxonomy, and AWE feedback was coded with the same categorization scheme.

“Having collected the written data we first identified all the teacher feedback points (F.Hyland, 1998) and coded them according to a modified version of Ferris's (2006) taxonomy.We then followed the same categorization scheme to code the AWE feedback.”

• cites F.Hyland, 1998 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Ferris's (2006) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The extent of students' engagement with form-focused feedback varies greatly, and one lower-intermediate student's response to teacher feedback was strongly influenced by emotional reactions to the teacher's comments.

“F. Hyland (2003), for example, found that the extent her two case study students engaged with form-focused feedback varied greatly, so that one lower-intermediate student's response to teacher feedback was strongly influenced by her emotional reactions to the teachers' comments on her work.”

• cites F. Hyland (2003) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

Different sources of feedback have great potential in facilitating L2 students' involvement in their writing.

“We suggest that student engagement is a key factor in the success of writing development and how these different sources of feedback have great potential in facilitating L2 students' involvement in their writing.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Student engagement with written corrective feedback facilitates language acquisition and writing development.

“A number of studies have suggested that student engagement with written corrective feedback facilitates language acquisition and writing development.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Student engagement is a key factor in the success of writing development.

“We suggest that student engagement is a key factor in the success of writing development and how these different sources of feedback have great potential in facilitating L2 students' involvement in their writing.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Student engagement with written feedback goes beyond error corrections.

“It is important to keep in mind that engagement is a multidimensional construct and student engagement with written feedback goes beyond error corrections.”

May combine two claims.

David's lack of linguistic knowledge impacted on his ability to correct errors and discouraged him from doing so, thus reducing his cognitive, behavioural and affective engagement.

“His lack of linguistic knowledge therefore impacted on his ability to correct errors and discouraged him from doing so, thus his cognitive, behavioural and affective engagement was reduced.”

May combine two claims.

Flora's proficiency enabled her to cognitively engage and encouraged her motivation (affect) and successful revisions (behavioural).

“Her proficiency thus enabled her to cognitively engage and encouraged her motivation (affect) and successful revisions (behavioural).”

May combine two claims.

David seemed less willing to reflect on the data provided on his writing or take the initiative to improve his work without teacher guidance or intervention.

“He seemed less willing to reflect on the data provided to him on his writing or take the initiative to improve his work without the guidance or intervention of a teacher.”

May combine two claims.

David's limited enthusiasm impacted how he engaged cognitively and behaviourally with teacher feedback, as he used more deletion that did not involve much evaluating, planning or monitoring.

“This also had an impact on how he engaged cognitively and behaviourally with the feedback as he used more deletion that did not involve much evaluating, planning or monitoring.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Revision operations such as deletion and correction are valid indicators of the depth of cognitive engagement.

May combine two claims.

The two students engaged with teacher and AWE feedback on their writing differently, and there were two main factors in this: the type of feedback the students received and individual learner traits.

“It is clear that the two students engaged with teacher and AWE feedback on their writing differently and we believe there were two main factors in this: the type of feedback the students received and individual learner traits.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Mechanical revising according to the answers provided by the teacher is simply copying and can be done automatically without deep engagement.

“This kind of mechanical revising according to the answers provided by the teacher is simply copying and can be done automatically without deep engagement.”

May combine two claims.

David's lack of English proficiency restricted his understanding of the feedback and contributed to a lack of deep engagement with teacher feedback.

“this deletion strategy suggests that David's lack of English proficiency restricted his understanding of the feedback and contributed to a lack of deep engagement with teacher feedback.”

May combine two claims.

Language proficiency was perhaps the most significant learner factor, and it is related to cognitive engagement.

“Perhaps the most significant of these was language proficiency, which is related to cognitive engagement.”

May combine two claims.

AWE feedback created considerable anxiety for David and as a result he rejected its validity.

“Affectively, the feedback created considerable anxiety for David and as a result he rejected its validity”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Revisions were classified into seven categories after recursive passes through the feedback and students' writing.

“After recursive passes through the feedback and students' writing we classified revisions into seven categories: (1) correction, (2) no correction, (3) deletion, (4) substitution, (5) addition, (6) reorganization and (7) rewriting.”

May combine two claims.

Lack of teacher support, in addition to negative emotions created by his experience of the AWE score, combined to discourage David from engaging either behaviorally or cognitively with the AWE feedback.

“This lack of teacher support, in addition to the negative emotions created by his experience of the AWE score combined to discourage David from engaging either behaviorally or cognitively with the AWE feedback.”

May combine two claims.

David's revision of teacher feedback was primarily at a surface level, despite producing a second draft with fewer errors.

“To address his problem areas during revision would require more cognitive processing, evaluating, and monitoring, so despite producing a second draft with fewer errors, the revision was primarily at a surface level.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Revision operations such as deletion and correction are valid indicators of the depth of cognitive engagement.

May combine two claims.

Flora spent some time revising her essay and made efforts to improve the quality of her writing.

“Together with her improved score, this indicated that Flora spent some time revising her essay and made efforts to improve the quality of her writing.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The AWE system's score is a valid indicator of the quality of the student's writing.

The quote only partly states this claim.

David's error frequency explains why he found the AWE feedback overwhelming.

“which explains why he found the feedback overwhelming.”

May combine two claims.

There is a multidirectional interaction among the three types of engagement and a bi-directional interaction between the use of strategies and deep engagement.

“Overall, we can see here a multidirectional interaction among the three types of engagement and a bi-directional interaction between the use of strategies and deep engagement.”

May combine two claims.

A number of learner factors are likely to have influenced their responses to feedback and indicate the degree of engagement they were prepared, or able, to invest.

“A number of learner factors are also likely to have influenced their responses to feedback and indicate the degree of engagement they were prepared, or able, to invest.”

May combine two claims.

Flora's greater repertoire of learning strategies enabled her to interpret and use both teacher and AWE feedback, making better use of the online dictionary to identify and correct errors.

“Flora's greater repertoire of learning strategies enabled her to interpret and use both teacher and AWE feedback, making better use of the online dictionary, for instance, to identify and correct errors.”

May combine two claims.

David's inability to decode the symbols limited his engagement and ability to respond to teacher feedback.

“although his inability to decode the symbols limited his engagement and ability to respond”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The teacher feedback symbols (circles, underlines, question marks) indicated problem areas in the student's text.

May combine two claims.

It is not the mere possession of these qualities which leads to good responses to feedback; it is the active student engagement which produces an effective response.

“But we believe it is not the mere possession of these qualities which leads to good responses to feedback, it is the active student engagement which produces an effective response.”

May combine two claims.

The ability to engage with feedback on writing is not only determined by language ability; it also requires the motivation and interest to invest time and energy in the process as well as a repertoire of effective revision and writing operations to carry it out.

“The ability to engage with feedback on writing, therefore, is not only determined by language ability as it also requires the motivation and interest to invest time and energy in the process as well as a repertoire of effective revision and writing operations to carry it out.”

May combine two claims.

Flora wrote her revisions over two days with one week between them, indicating some reflection about the process between submissions.

“The timestamp, moreover, shows that she wrote her revisions over two days with one-week between them, indicating some reflection about the process between submissions.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Time gaps between AWE submissions indicate reflection about the revision process.

May combine two claims.

Flora's greater proficiency allowed her to thoroughly process both teacher and AWE comments, and use these to make effective revisions.

“Her greater proficiency allowed her to thoroughly process both teacher and AWE comments, and use these to make effective revisions.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Indirect feedback can help raise students' awareness of their mistakes.

“There is no consensus in the literature regarding the effectiveness of such indirect feedback on learning, this process can help raise students' awareness of their mistakes (Ferris, 2002).”

• cites Ferris, 2002Not checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Learners seem eager to receive immediate feedback on their writing and engage in the revision process when the task is still fresh in their memory.

“Learners seem eager to receive immediate feedback on their writing and engage in the revision process when the task is still fresh in their memory (K.Hyland, 2013).”

• cites K.Hyland, 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

A better understanding of how students engage with teacher and AWE feedback differently may help us make better-informed decisions regarding the sources of feedback we offer our students.

“and a better understanding of how students engage with teacher and AWE feedback differently may help us make better-informed decisions regarding the sources of feedback we offer our students.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

With the help of AWE feedback, teachers can adjust their feedback focus and allocate more time to instruction or to formative assessment aimed at the rhetorical development of student drafts.

“With the help of AWE feedback, teachers can adjust their feedback focus and allocate more time to instruction or to formative assessment aimed at the rhetorical development of student drafts.”

May combine two claims.

Instead of capitalizing on the advantages of computer-assisted language learning, David was more concerned about its drawbacks, thus influencing the way he engaged with the AWE feedback.

“Thus instead of capitalizing on the advantages of computer-assisted language learning he was more concerned about its drawbacks, thus influencing the way he engaged with the AWE feedback.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The examination of two types of feedback on L2 student writing indicates that it might be more effective to integrate the two types of feedback in classroom contexts.

“The examination of two types of feedback on L2 student writing indicates that it might be more effective to integrate the two types of feedback in classroom contexts.”

May combine two claims.

This belief prompted Flora to actively use both cognitive strategies (e.g. monitoring and synthesizing) and affective strategies (e.g. adjusting emotions and using motivation) to improve both her draft and her writing skills.

“This belief prompted her to actively use both cognitive strategies (e.g.monitoring and synthesizing) and affective strategies (e.g.adjusting emotions and using motivation) to improve both her draft and her writing skills.”

May combine two claims.

Both the source of the feedback and individual learner factors can shape the process so that language proficiency and knowledge of learning strategies can play a pivotal role, not only in helping students to understand and interpret feedback, but also in evaluating and monitoring the revision process.

“Both the source of the feedback and individual learner factors can shape the process so that language proficiency and knowledge of learning strategies can play a pivotal role, not only in helping students to understand and interpret feedback, but also in evaluating and monitoring the revision process.”

May combine two claims.

Learners can be empowered with the responsibility to revise their essays according to their own schedule, enjoying the autonomy offered by AWE feedback, and by capitalizing on multiple drafting and revision opportunities to improve their drafts, can internalize language points in the revision process.

“Learners can be empowered with the responsibility to revise their essays according to their own schedule, enjoying the autonomy offered by AWE feedback and, by capitalizing on the multiple drafting and revision opportunities to improve their drafts, can internalize language points in the revision process.”

May combine two claims.

Teacher feedback also has advantages; most importantly, teachers' comments on content and organization are highly valued by student writers, partly because they are a human response to their writing and not a pattern-matching algorithm designed to highlight errors.

“However, teacher feedback also has advantages.Most importantly, teachers' comments on content and organization are highly valued by student writers, partly because they are a human response to their writing and not a pattern-matching algorithm designed to highlight errors.”

May combine two claims.

More highly engaged learners tend to spend more time working with feedback, show more positive attitudes toward it, and employ more revising strategies, demonstrating that behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement dynamically interact with each other.

“More highly engaged learners thus tend to spend more time working with feedback, show more positive attitudes toward it, and employ more revising strategies, demonstrating that behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement dynamically interact with each other.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Engagement is a dynamic process whereby behavioral, affective, and cognitive responses are simultaneously at work.

“Such engagement is a dynamic process whereby behavioral, affective, and cognitive responses are simultaneously at work.”