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
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
