Engaging with automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback on L2 writing: student perceptions and revisions
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This study supports previous studies on improving writing engagement with AWCF.
“Our study supports previous studies on improving writing engagement with AWCF (Koltovskaia, 2020; Zhang, 2020).”
From Application of Artificial Intelligence powered digital writing assistant in higher education: randomized controlled trial (2021) · cites this paper as Zhang, 2020
Cites
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 · see citing works
Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers
Sommers, N. (1980) · College Composition & Communication · doi:10.2307/356588 · Cited by 749 · see citing works
Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing
Zhang, Z. (., & Hyland, K. (2018) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004 · Cited by 546 · see citing works
Self-citationFocusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback?
Hyland, F. (2003) · System · doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(03)00021-6 · Cited by 411 · see citing works
Automated written corrective feedback: how well can students make use of it?
Ranalli, J. (2018) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Beyond ‘doing time’: Investigating the concept of student engagement with feedback
Handley, K., Price, M., & Millar, J. (2011) · Oxford Review of Education · doi:10.1080/03054985.2011.604951 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
The impact of computer-based feedback on students' written work?
El Ebyary, K., & Windeatt, S. (2010) · International Journal of English Studies · doi:10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119231 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nazari, N., Shabbir, M. S., & Setiawan, R. (2021) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014 · Cited by 405 · see citing works
Barrett, A., & Pack, A. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00427-0 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for learning and issues of trust
Ranalli, J. (2021) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100816 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Teng, M. F. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100270 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Wei, P., Wang, X., & Dong, H. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1249991 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Tseng, Y.-C., & Lin, Y.-H. (2024) · Electronic Journal of e-Learning · doi:10.34190/ejel.21.5.3329 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
How do students use <scp>ChatGPT</scp> as a writing support?
Levine, S., Beck, S. W., Mah, C., Phalen, L., & PIttman, J. (2025) · Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy · doi:10.1002/jaal.1373 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Tran, T. T. T. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15020232 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Yeung, S. (2025) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101203 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Shen, C., Shi, P., Guo, J., Xu, S., & Tian, J. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1258286 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Exploring artificial intelligence using automated writing evaluation for writing skills
Abdul Rahman, N. A., Zulkornain, L. H., & Hamzah, N. H. (2022) · Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal · doi:10.21834/ebpj.v7isi9.4304 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Zhou, C., & Wang, Y. (2026) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70478 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Guo, X. (2025) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2024.2445177 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Rouhi, A., Dibah, M., & Mohebbi, H. (2020) · Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education · doi:10.1186/s40862-020-00093-z · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Department of Foreign Languages, I. U. O. S. A. T., Farsani, M. A., & Aghamohammadi, N. (2021) · Mextesol Journal · doi:10.61871/mj.v45n4-1 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Learner agency in revising <scp>GenAI</scp> ‐generated statements of purpose
Jiang, Y., Wu, Q., Yang, Y., Jian, C., & Zhao, J. (2026) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.70041 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Yao, M., Wei, Y., & Liu, H. (2026) · Ethics & Behavior · doi:10.1080/10508422.2025.2549310 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zhang, Z. (.
- Affiliations
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Corresponding author
- Zhang, Zhe (Victor)
- ORCID
- Zhang, Zhe (Victor)
- Venue
- Assessing Writing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-01
- Volume
- 43
- Pages
- 100439
- ISSN
- 1075-2935 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2997634920
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 54 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 93.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Assessing Writing (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Keywords
- automated writing evaluation, second language writing, student engagement, revision process, student perceptions, revision strategies, cognitive strategies, Chinese university students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
