The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“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 Koltovskaia, 2020
In the citing paper
“Research has shown that students often accept automated feedback with little cognitive engagement, highlighting the risk of thoughtless reliance on AI tools (Koltovskaia, 2020).”
From Measuring undergraduate students’ reliance on generative AI during problem-solving: Scale development and validation. (2025) · cites this paper as Koltovskaia, 2020
Citations
Cites
(1984) · Cited by 81,983
Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches
Creswell, J. W. (1994) · Cited by 35,212
Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
Caldas, M. (2003) · Revista de Administração Contemporânea · doi:10.1590/s1415-65552003000100015 · Cited by 18,688
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
(2008) · Cited by 7,674
Case study research: Design and methods
McCorcle, M. D., & Bell, E. L. (1986) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/0149-7189(86)90052-2 · Cited by 5,884
SWAIN, M., & LAPKIN, S. (1995) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/16.3.371 · Cited by 1,407
Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research
Gass, S. M., Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Mackey, A. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410606006 · Cited by 969
AUTOMATED ESSAY SCORING WITH E‐RATER® V.2.0
Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. C. (2004) · ETS Research Report Series · doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2004.tb01972.x · Cited by 641
Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006) · Cited by 579
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
Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002 · Cited by 530
Ellis, R. (2010) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263109990544 · Cited by 479
(2006) · The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment (Boston College) · Cited by 424
Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001 · Cited by 401
Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction
Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. H. (2014) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004 · Cited by 362
Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda
Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1191/1362168806lr190oa · Cited by 337
Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research
Taguchi, N., Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2002) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3588371 · Cited by 307
Chen, C.-F. E., & Cheng, W.-Y. E. C. (2008) · Language Learning & Technology · doi:10.64152/10125/44145 · Cited by 304
The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing
Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2014) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007 · Cited by 275
Automated Writing Assessment in the Classroom
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2008) · Pedagogies: An International Journal · doi:10.1080/15544800701771580 · Cited by 243
Utility in a Fallible Tool: A Multi-Site Case Study of Automated Writing Evaluation.
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010) · The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment (Boston College) · Cited by 241
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
In the face of fallible AWE feedback: how do students respond?
Bai, L., & Hu, G. (2016) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410.2016.1223275 · Cited by 209
Ranalli, J., Link, S., & Chukharev‐Hudilainen, E. (2016) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410.2015.1136407 · Cited by 207
Dikli, S., & Bleyle, S. (2014) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.006 · Cited by 193
Wang, Y.-J., Shang, H.-F., & Briody, P. (2013) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.655300 · Cited by 185
Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly
ONeill, R., & Russell, A. (2019) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.3795 · Cited by 180
Validity arguments for diagnostic assessment using automated writing evaluation
Chapelle, C. A., Cotos, E., & Lee, J. (2015) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/0265532214565386 · Cited by 158
Automated scoring using a hybrid feature identification technique
Burstein, J. C., Kukich, K., Wolff, S., Lu, C., Chodorow, M. S., Braden-Harder, L. C., & Harris, M. D. (1998) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.3115/980845.980879 · Cited by 157
(2004) · Cited by 128
Student engagement with computer-generated feedback: a case study
Zhang, Z. (2016) · ELT Journal · doi:10.1093/elt/ccw089 · Cited by 120
Complementing human judgment of essays written by English language learners with e-rater ® scoring
Enright, M. K., & Quinlan, T. (2010) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/0265532210363144 · Cited by 114
Automated essay scoring for nonnative English speakers
Burstein, J. C., & Chodorow, M. S. (1999) · doi:10.3115/1598834.1598847 · Cited by 114
Using automated writing evaluation to reduce grammar errors in writing
Liao, H.-C. (2015) · ELT Journal · doi:10.1093/elt/ccv058 · Cited by 104
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
Which do students prefer to evaluate their essays: peers or computer program
Lai, Y. (2010) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00959.x · Cited by 92
Automated Feedback and Second Language Writing
Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108635547.009 · Cited by 77
Li, Z., Feng, H.-H., & Sarıcaoğlu, A. (2017) · CALICO Journal · doi:10.1558/cj.26382 · Cited by 53
Qassemzadeh, A., & Soleimani, H. (2016) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.17507/tpls.0609.23 · Cited by 52
Cotos, E. (2014) · Iowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University) · Cited by 50
COMPARING THE VALIDITY OF AUTOMATED AND HUMAN SCORING OF ESSAYS
Powers, D. E., Burstein, J. C., Chodorow, M. S., Fowles, M. E., & Kukich, K. (2002) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.2190/cx92-7wkv-n7wc-jl0a · Cited by 49
EFL business writing behaviors in differing feedback environments
Warden, C. A. (2000) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00141 · Cited by 34
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Ranalli, J., & Yamashita, T. (2019, March). Synchronous automated written corrective feedback: Effects on L2 college students’ revision behavior and text quality. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) Annual Conference.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806
Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: an exploratory investigation
Yan, D. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4 · Cited by 713
Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring
Mizumoto, A., & Eguchi, M. (2023) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100050 · Cited by 647
AI-generated feedback on writing: insights into efficacy and ENL student preference
Escalante, J., Pack, A., & Barrett, A. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2 · Cited by 589
Guo, K., & Wang, D. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0 · Cited by 449
Metadata
- Authors
- Koltovskaia, S.
- Affiliations
- Oklahoma State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Koltovskaia, Svetlana
- Venue
- Assessing Writing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-04
- Volume
- 44
- Pages
- 100450
- ISSN
- 1075-2935 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3011057862
- Cited by
- 447
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 133 · 2025: 105 · 2024: 96 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 121.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Assessing Writing (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Keywords
- Grammarly, student engagement, automated writing evaluation, second language writing, cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, behavioral engagement, feedback acceptance, technology dependence, draft revision
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
