The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 31 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing
Open accessOverview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
63 Own result · 50 Own interpretation · 16 No full text of the sources · 10 No basis given · 6 Not checked yet · 2 Sources not found · 2 Own method · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the second draft of his Tourism English essay David corrected most of his errors as these were explicitly identified and corrected by the teacher.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, Flora cognitively engaged with the teacher feedback by rewriting and reorganizing some sentences and paragraphs.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also found that the two learners tended to differ between these sources in terms of their affective engagement.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Flora also demonstrated a similarly high level of engagement with AWE feedback on her essay.”
boostedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The differences between their engagement types became more obvious in their responses to AWE feedback when there was a multiple drafting opportunity.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We saw that David, with limited proficiency, had more difficulty understanding both teacher and AWE feedback than Flora.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A comparison between the second draft and the first draft of Flora's essay showed that she responded to teacher feedback by carrying out a variety of revision operations.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“David made 35 errors in seven categories: adjective, noun, verb, spelling, punctuation, collocation, and sentence structure.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“David, however, did not engage affectively with either source to any extent.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, a careful examination of the student texts showed that many mechanical errors such as number and abbreviations were not diagnosed by the AWE system.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 78
- Probably not a substantial claim. 29
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Chen & Cheng, 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Partly supportedcites Dikli, 2006Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We characterise Flora as a student who demonstrated deep and full engagement with both teacher and AWE feedback on her writing.”
boostedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The AWE system's diagnosis of errors is accurate.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“She also substituted simplistic terms and phrases with more sophisticated ones.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, Flora effectively corrected all the linguistic errors explicitly identified by the teacher, but missed the one error which the teacher only implicitly indicated.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
boosteddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The AWE system's diagnosis of errors is accurate.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“David said that he was overwhelmed by the amount of corrective feedback and felt helpless about how to address the problems.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“His response to both sources of feedback was more passive, and demonstrated lower levels of self-starting and participation.”
boostedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neither student was used to receiving detailed teacher feedback so they were often unsure about how to engage with it.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the interview, David expressed his confusion over this feedback:”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the interview, David did say that he appreciated the feedback he received and there was obviously an affective connection with the teacher”
boostedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared to David, Flora was more active in that she invested more time-on-task and more positive attitudes in the revision process.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“She also addressed confusing parts of her essay by deleting unnecessary words and sentences, and adding more explanations to increase clarity.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neither reorganization nor rewriting was evident.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Flora, in contrast, is a higher proficiency student and had relatively little difficulty interpreting both teacher and AWE feedback on her work.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In all, the changes were minimal and he neither reorganized nor rewrote any part of his essay.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Revision operations such as deletion and correction are valid indicators of the depth of cognitive engagement.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The teacher feedback symbols (circles, underlines, question marks) indicated problem areas in the student's text.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These students varied in the techniques they were able to deploy, a factor related to their behavioural and cognitive engagement with feedback.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So, behaviorally, David attempted to attend to the teacher feedback and made revisions”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Redundant words and phrases that were either circled or underlined were substituted with more concise ones.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a highly engaged learner, Flora gravitated more towards”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, David, responded mechanically to both teacher and AWE feedback, with a preference for spoonfeeding and a sceptical attitude to automated feedback.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedcorrelationaln = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Engagement also seems to involve students in devoting cognitive resources to understanding or memorizing the feedback they are given (Sachs & Polio, 2007).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sachs & Polio, 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Stevenson and Phakiti (2014) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Grimes (2005)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Qi and Lapkin (2001) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The bulk of AWE feedback research, however, has focused on students' written products, with little attention paid to students' writing and revising process.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fredricks et al., 2004 source
- Not matchedcites Willms, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to keep in mind that engagement is a multidimensional construct and student engagement with written feedback goes beyond error corrections.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Goldstein, 2005 source
- Not matchedcites K. Hyland, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites F. Hyland (2003) source
plaindirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A number of studies have suggested that student engagement with written corrective feedback facilitates language acquisition and writing development.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to keep in mind that engagement is a multidimensional construct and student engagement with written feedback goes beyond error corrections.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Her proficiency thus enabled her to cognitively engage and encouraged her motivation (affect) and successful revisions (behavioural).”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Revision operations such as deletion and correction are valid indicators of the depth of cognitive engagement.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This kind of mechanical revising according to the answers provided by the teacher is simply copying and can be done automatically without deep engagement.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perhaps the most significant of these was language proficiency, which is related to cognitive engagement.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Affectively, the feedback created considerable anxiety for David and as a result he rejected its validity”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Revision operations such as deletion and correction are valid indicators of the depth of cognitive engagement.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The AWE system's score is a valid indicator of the quality of the student's writing.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which explains why he found the feedback overwhelming.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although his inability to decode the symbols limited his engagement and ability to respond”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The teacher feedback symbols (circles, underlines, question marks) indicated problem areas in the student's text.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedcorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Time gaps between AWE submissions indicate reflection about the revision process.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Her greater proficiency allowed her to thoroughly process both teacher and AWE comments, and use these to make effective revisions.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ferris, 2002
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites K.Hyland, 2013 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
boostedcorrelationaln = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such engagement is a dynamic process whereby behavioral, affective, and cognitive responses are simultaneously at work.”
plaincorrelationaln = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper relies on this without support.
The AWE system's score is a valid indicator of the quality of the student's 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.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The number of resubmissions to the AWE system is a valid indicator of behavioral engagement with revision.
“The high number of resubmissions to the programme show that Flora was fully engaged behaviorally with the revision task.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Time gaps between AWE submissions indicate reflection about the revision process.
“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.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The AWE score is a valid indicator of writing quality or improvement.
“The negligible increase of the score shows his revision was not effective.”
“More wounding was the score the AWE awarded him.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The AWE system's diagnosis of errors is accurate.
“When comparing the two drafts, we also noticed that many errors diagnosed by the AWE system were not properly addressed.”
“David made 35 errors in seven categories: adjective, noun, verb, spelling, punctuation, collocation, and sentence structure.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Revision operations such as deletion and correction are valid indicators of the depth of cognitive engagement.
“To understand how David cognitively engaged with the AWE feedback we analyzed the revision operations he used.”
“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.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The teacher feedback symbols (circles, underlines, question marks) indicated problem areas in the student's text.
“instead of directly addressing the problem areas circled and underlined”
“his inability to decode the symbols limited his engagement”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The positive perceptions echoed by participants align with prior research, emphasizing the significance of real-time feedback as a pedagogical tool (Zhang and Hyland, 2018).”
From Enhancing academic writing skills and motivation: assessing the efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-assisted language learning for EFL students (2023) · cites this paper as Zhang and Hyland, 2018
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 9.1 Feedback source
“David, however, did not engage affectively with either source to any extent.”
§ 7 David: A moderately engaged learner
“there was obviously an affective connection with the teacher”
Citations
Cites
(1998) · Sage eBooks · Cited by 38,631
(2010) · Intellectum (Universidad de La Sabana) · doi:10.1111/j.1467- · Cited by 16,131
School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543074001059 · Cited by 12,581 · cited 3×
“Fredricks et al. (2004) tripartite conceptualisation of engagement has been picked up by Ellis’ (2010) who suggests it can be applied to students’ approaches to corrective feedback (CF).”
BackgroundHandbook of educational psychology
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-3084 · Cited by 4,850
(2000) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-109890-2.x5027-6 · Cited by 4,453
A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329 · Cited by 3,807
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571 · Cited by 3,428 · cited 1×
“Emotional engagement is often operationalized as identification with school (Voelkl, 1997) and various emotions related to school work, teachers, and peers (Skinner & Belmont, 1993).”
BackgroundHandbook of Research on Student Engagement
(2012) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7 · Cited by 3,050
Finn, J. D. (1989) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.2307/1170412 · Cited by 2,702
On the relationship between emotion and cognition
Pessoa, L. (2008) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2317 · Cited by 2,350
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Song, C., & Song, Y. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1260843 · Cited by 717
Koltovskaia, S. (2020) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450 · Cited by 447
Murillo‐Zamorano, L. R., Sánchez, J. Á. L., & Caballero, A. L. G. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103608 · Cited by 392
AI in the Foreign Language Classroom: A Pedagogical Overview of Automated Writing Assistance Tools
Alharbi, W. (2023) · Education Research International · doi:10.1155/2023/4253331 · Cited by 286
Fostering student engagement with feedback: An integrated approach
Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2021) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2021.100586 · Cited by 351
Self-citationZhang, Z. (. (2020) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.100439 · Cited by 256
Self-citationTian, L., & Zhou, Y. (2020) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102247 · Cited by 242
A systematic review of AI-based automated written feedback research
Shi, H., & Aryadoust, V. (2024) · ReCALL · doi:10.1017/s0958344023000265 · Cited by 222
Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing
Fan, Y., & Xu, J. (2020) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100775 · Cited by 222
Koltovskaia, S., Rahmati, P., & Saeli, H. (2024) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101130 · Cited by 241
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
A review of AWE feedback: types, learning outcomes, and implications
Fu, Q.-K., Zou, D., Xie, H., & Cheng, G. (2022) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2022.2033787 · Cited by 210
Yu, S., Jiang, L. G., & Zhou, N. (2020) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100451 · Cited by 187
Han, Y., & Xu, Y. (2019) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2019.1648410 · Cited by 177
Yang, H., & Kyun, S. (2022) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.7492 · Cited by 208
Academic emotions in written corrective feedback situations
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2018) · Journal of English for Academic Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.003 · Cited by 172
Positive teacher-student relationships may lead to better teaching
Li, X., Bergin, C. C., & Olsen, A. A. (2022) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101581 · Cited by 205
Han, Y. (2018) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2018.12.009 · Cited by 154
Automated Writing Evaluation Tools in the Improvement of the Writing Skill
Parra-Gavilánez, L. F., & Sánchez, X. A. C. (2019) · International Journal of Instruction · doi:10.29333/iji.2019.12214a · Cited by 147
Boudouaia, A., Mouas, S., & Kouider, B. (2024) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331241247465 · Cited by 186
Ding, L., & Zou, D. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12402-3 · Cited by 122
Assessing student perceptions and use of instructor versus AI ‐generated feedback
Er, E., Akçapınar, G., Bayazıt, A., Noroozi, O., & Banihashem, S. K. (2025) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13558 · Cited by 114
Guo, Q., Feng, R., & Hua, Y. (2021) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2021.1879161 · Cited by 112
Zhai, N., & Ma, X. (2021) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2021.1897019 · Cited by 113
Evaluating student motivation and engagement in the Chinese EFL writing context
Yu, S., Zhou, N., Zheng, Y., Zhang, L., Cao, H., & Li, X. (2019) · Studies In Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.06.002 · Cited by 133
Shi, H., Chai, C. S., Zhou, S., & Aubrey, S. (2026) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2025.2454541 · Cited by 109
Contexts and Issues in Feedback on L2 Writing
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108635547.003 · Cited by 137
Self-citationPost-Graduate Students’ Perceptions of Quillbot Utilization in English Academic Writing Class
Kurniati, E. Y., & Fithriani, R. (2022) · Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics · doi:10.21462/jeltl.v7i3.852 · Cited by 97
Yan, D., & Zhang, S. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03543-y · Cited by 90
Wei, P., Wang, X., & Dong, H. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1249991 · Cited by 89
Loncar, M., Schams, W., & Liang, J.-S. (2021) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2021.1943452 · Cited by 110
Yang, H., Gao, C., & Shen, H. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11991-3 · Cited by 141
Appropriating automated feedback in L2 writing: experiences of Chinese EFL student writers
Jiang, L. G., & Yu, S. (2020) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2020.1799824 · Cited by 88
Cheng, X., & Liu, Y. (2022) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2022.102880 · Cited by 99
Liu, C., Liu, S., Hwang, G., Tu, Y., Wang, Y., & Wang, N. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11697-6 · Cited by 95
Zou, S., Guo, K., Wang, J., & Liu, Y. (2026) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2024.2447279 · Cited by 79
Learner engagement and language learning: a narrative inquiry of a successful language learner
Zhang, Z. (2020) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2020.1786712 · Cited by 76
Self-citationThe Effects of Online Feedback on ESL/EFL Writing: A Meta-Analysis
Lv, X., Ren, W., & Xie, Y. H. (2021) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-021-00594-6 · Cited by 106
Using automated corrective feedback tools in language learning: a review study
Shadiev, R., & Feng, Y. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2022.2153145 · Cited by 71
Effects of EFL Learners’ L2 Writing Self-efficacy on Engagement with Written Corrective Feedback
Tsao, J.-J. (2021) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-021-00591-9 · Cited by 102
Student Engagement with Written Feedback: Critical Issues and Way Forward
Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2024) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/00336882221150811 · Cited by 69
Zou, M., Kong, D., & Lee, I. (2021) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-021-00593-7 · Cited by 65
The effect of feedback on metacognitive strategy use in EFL writing
Jian-hua, Z., & Zhang, L. J. (2022) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2022.2069822 · Cited by 80
Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2023) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2023.2256815 · Cited by 86
Self-citationZhang, Z. (2021) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2021.1933900 · Cited by 86
Self-citationZheng, Y., Yu, S., & Liu, Z. (2020) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2020.1806225 · Cited by 70
The impact of integrating ChatGPT with teachers’ feedback on EFL writing skills
Asadi, M., Ebadi, S., & Mohammadi, L. (2025) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101766 · Cited by 125
The impact of L2 writing instructional approaches on student writing motivation and engagement
Yu, S., Jiang, L., & Zhou, N. (2020) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168820957024 · Cited by 62
Chen, Z., Zhu, X., Lu, Q., & Wei, W. (2024) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2024.2422478 · Cited by 94
Cheng, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2024) · Studies in Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101337 · Cited by 62
Yao, Y., Wang, W., & Yang, X. (2021) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2021.100568 · Cited by 63
L2 learners’ agentic engagement in an assessment as learning-focused writing classroom
Lu, W., & Lee, I. (2021) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2021.100571 · Cited by 72
Automated Feedback and Second Language Writing
Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108635547.009 · Cited by 77
Woodworth, J., & Barkaoui, K. (2020) · TESL Canada Journal · doi:10.18806/tesl.v37i2.1340 · Cited by 60
McCarthy, K. S., Roscoe, R. D., Allen, L. K., Likens, A. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2022) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2022.100608 · Cited by 61
Lee, C. (2019) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1544152 · Cited by 59
What works may hurt: The negative side of feedback in second language writing
Yu, S., Geng, F., Liu, C., & Zheng, Y. (2021) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100850 · Cited by 84
Jiang, L. G., & Yu, S. (2021) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-021-00583-9 · Cited by 64
Understanding student engagement with teacher and peer feedback in L2 writing
Cheng, X., Liu, Y., & Wang, C. (2023) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2023.103176 · Cited by 78
A systematic review of current trends in artificial intelligence in foreign language learning
Alhusaiyan, E. A. (2024) · Saudi Journal of Language Studies · doi:10.1108/sjls-07-2024-0039 · Cited by 92
Perception of online feedback and its impact on cognitive and emotional engagement with feedback
Saíz, R. M. M., Espasa, A., Guasch, T., & Melo, M. M. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-10948-2 · Cited by 67
Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2023) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2023.100784 · Cited by 89
Self-citationTambunan, A. R. S., Andayani, W., Sari, W. S., & Lubis, F. K. (2022) · Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.17509/ijal.v12i1.46428 · Cited by 85
Investigating students’ engagement in chatbot-supported classroom debates
Guo, K., Zhong, Y., Li, D., & Chu, S. K. W. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2207181 · Cited by 66
Ma, M., Wang, C., & Teng, M. F. (2021) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-021-00600-x · Cited by 58
Sarı, E., & Han, T. (2024) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.13004 · Cited by 57
Saeed, M. A., & Qunayeer, H. S. A. (2020) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2020.1786711 · Cited by 51
Jin, Y. (2024) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2024.101960 · Cited by 62
Xu, J., & Zhang, S. (2021) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-021-00577-7 · Cited by 58
Jiang, Y. (2024) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2024.100975 · Cited by 62
Researching L2 Student Engagement with Written Feedback: Insights from Sociocultural Theory
Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2021) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.3071 · Cited by 59
Assessing metacognition-based student feedback literacy for academic writing
Teng, M. F., & Ma, M. (2024) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2024.100811 · Cited by 70
Mao, Z., Lee, I., & Li, S. (2024) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444823000393 · Cited by 101
Li, Y., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13574-w · Cited by 87
Vo, H. (2022) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688221075781 · Cited by 56
Barrot, J. S. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12083-y · Cited by 47
AI vs. teacher feedback on EFL argumentative writing: a quantitative study
Alnemrat, A., Aldamen, H. A. K., Almashour, M., Al‐Deaibes, M., & Alsharefeen, R. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1614673 · Cited by 100
Zhang, Z., & Xu, L. (2022) · Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development · doi:10.1080/01434632.2022.2102175 · Cited by 57
Self-citationGenerative AI for scalable feedback to multimodal exercises
Jürgensmeier, L., & Skiera, B. (2024) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2024.05.005 · Cited by 59
Automated writing evaluation use in second language classrooms: A research synthesis
Karatay, Y., & Karatay, L. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103332 · Cited by 49
Payant, C., & Zuniga, M. (2022) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2021.102715 · Cited by 49
Zhao, H. M., Liu, X., & Qi, C. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.697822 · Cited by 44
Xu, S., Su, Y., & Liu, K. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13457-0 · Cited by 98
Fathi, J., Pawlak, M., & Hejazi, S. Y. (2024) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263124000536 · Cited by 56
Yamashita, T. (2024) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100133 · Cited by 61
Reconceptualizing the impact of feedback in second language writing: A multidimensional perspective
Liu, C., & Yu, S. (2022) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2022.100630 · Cited by 55
Thi, N. K., Nikolov, M., & Simon, K. (2022) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2022.2122476 · Cited by 45
Avoiding Academic Burnout: Academic Factors That Enhance University Student Engagement
de Cózar, S. R., Merino-Cajaraville, A., & Salguero-Pazos, M. R. (2023) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs13120989 · Cited by 59
Voluntary use of automated writing evaluation by content course students
Sarıcaoğlu, A., & Bilki, Z. (2021) · ReCALL · doi:10.1017/s0958344021000021 · Cited by 50
Adeshola, I., & Agoyi, M. (2022) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2022.2029493 · Cited by 42
Rong, M., Yao, Y., Li, Q., & Chen, X. (2025) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2025.2539979 · Cited by 48
Doctoral students’ engagement with journal reviewers’ feedback on academic writing
Yu, S., & Jiang, L. (2020) · Studies in Continuing Education · doi:10.1080/0158037x.2020.1781610 · Cited by 38
Engaging with multiple sources of feedback in academic writing: postgraduate students’ perspectives
Xu, L., & Zhang, T. (2023) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2022.2161089 · Cited by 40
Alsaiari, O. A. S., Baghaei, N., Lahza, H. F., Lodge, J. M., Bodén, M., & Khosravi, H. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105363 · Cited by 85
Pourdana, N., & Tavassoli, K. (2022) · Language Testing in Asia · doi:10.1186/s40468-022-00156-7 · Cited by 34
Schiller, R., Fleckenstein, J., Mertens, U., Horbach, A., & Meyer, J. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105163 · Cited by 36
Toward a Motivation-Regulated Learner Engagement WCF Model of L2 Writing Performance
Tsao, J.-J., Tseng, W., Hsiao, T., Wang, C., & Gao, X. A. (2021) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440211023172 · Cited by 35
Modeling the Continuance Intention to Use Automated Writing Evaluation Among Chinese EFL Learners
Li, R. (2021) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440211060782 · Cited by 33
An automated writing evaluation (AWE) in higher education
Miranty, D., & Widiati, U. (2021) · Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction · doi:10.47750/pegegog.11.04.12 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, Z. (., & Hyland, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Hong Kong (HK)
- University of East Anglia (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Zhang, Zhe (Victor)
- Venue
- Assessing Writing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-04
- Volume
- 36
- Pages
- 90-102
- ISSN
- 1075-2935 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2793493211
- Semantic Scholar
- da406dec79720a12d3b06a14bb71c4fab68acf83
- Cited by
- 546
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 101 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 104 · 2023: 80 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 145.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk
- Licence
- Locations
- Assessing Writing (publishedVersion)
- UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- student engagement, automated writing evaluation, teacher feedback, second language writing, formative assessment, writing development, Chinese learners of English, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
