The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for learning and issues of trust
Abstract
Abstract Recent case-study research on L2 student engagement with automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback shows it is not simply a matter of understanding and implementing suggested changes but can instead be strongly influenced by individual and contextual factors. The present multiple-case study builds on this work by investigating the extent to which engagement supports learning from, and is influenced by trust in, AWE feedback. Six Mandarin L1 university students at different levels of English writing instruction participated, each providing a text they had written for a current course, which was submitted to the tool Grammarly for feedback. Screen-capture recordings, stimulated recalls, and interviews were used to collect information about how much of the feedback participants viewed, which of it they accepted, which they ignored or modified, and why they did so. Findings showed participants adopting a proofreading as opposed to a learning orientation toward the feedback, perhaps because most of it included specific corrections, thus requiring little work on the user’s part. Whereas previous studies attributed more successful engagement with AWE feedback to higher language proficiency, the present research showed different dimensions of trust in Grammarly’s feedback to be determining factors.
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
“Results showed high engagement, increased agency in tool use, and flexible integration of AI-generated text, contributing to both linguistic creativity and learner autonomy.”
From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [34]
In the citing paper
“Results showed high engagement, increased agency in tool use, and flexible integration of AI-generated text, contributing to both linguistic creativity and learner autonomy.”
From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [34]
In the citing paper
“Results showed high engagement, increased agency in tool use, and flexible integration of AI-generated text, contributing to both linguistic creativity and learner autonomy.”
From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [34]
In the citing paper
“Ranalli [34] provided important insights into the role of automated grammar support, finding that precise feedback on language use led to more sophisticated sentence structures without compromising student agency in the revision process.”
From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [34]
In the citing paper
“This hands-on approach helped students develop both procedural and metacognitive skills, allowing them to make more informed decisions about integrating AI feedback into their writing.”
From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [34]
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
(2009) · Cited by 21,330
(2008) · Cited by 7,674
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605
Teddlie, C. B., & Tashakkori, A. (2008) · Cited by 3,691
Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems
LEE, J., & MORAY, N. (1992) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139208967392 · Cited by 1,459
(2017) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315155401 · Cited by 1,199
Feedback on second language students' writing
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444806003399 · Cited by 1,048
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-2769 · Cited by 1,000
MUIR, B. M., & MORAY, N. (1996) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139608964474 · Cited by 993
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–185 of 185
Learning Styles, Engagement and Anxiety in AI‐Mediated Writing: A Multimodal Feedback Study
Ren, Y., Wong, W. L., Barrot, J. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2026) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.70120 · Cited by 8
Rodríguez, A. B. (2025) · The EuroCALL Review · doi:10.4995/eurocall.2025.23827 · Cited by 3
Cognitive Processes of Foreign Language Learners in AI-Assisted Second Language Writing
赵, 雨. (2025) · Advances in Education · doi:10.12677/ae.2025.1571315 · Cited by 2
Huang, Y., Palermo, C., & Wilson, J. (2025) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100479 · Cited by 2
Yan, D. “., Kasuma, S. A. A., & Amini, M. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-4871-2_14 · Cited by 2
Qian, J., Li, D., & Li, S. (2026) · Applied Linguistics Review · doi:10.1515/applirev-2025-0264 · Cited by 4
“…Hyland 2015; Han and Xu 2021), AWE (e.g., Giessler 2024; Yeung 2025; Zhang and Hyland 2023b; Zhang and Xu 2024), automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) (e.g., Rahimi et al. 2025; Yan and Zhang 2024), CF (Ranalli 2021), and generative arti fi cial intelligence (GenAI) (e.g., Zhan and Yan 2025).”
InfluentialA systematic review of AI-assisted academic writing: Tools, measures, and effects
Meng, Q., Xie, Y.-N., & Lu, D. (2026) · Journal of English for Academic Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2026.101726 · Cited by 5
AI-scaffolded summary writing for pre-class learning in an undergraduate physics course
Kim, M. K., Han, H., Kim, S., & Abdeen, M. S. (2026) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2026.101093 · Cited by 2
Leow, R. P., Manchón, R. M., & Polio, C. G. (2022) · Research methods in applied linguistics · doi:10.1075/rmal.3.13leo · Cited by 2
Google Docs to Manage an EFL Writing Class: How It Helps and What to Prepare
Kurniawati, A. (2022) · Journal of English and Education · doi:10.20885/jee.v8i2.25740 · Cited by 2
“In this digital era where artificial intelligence tools are everywhere, grammatical issues can be handled by online correction tools such as Grammarly, Writing Pal, and Google Docs (McCarthy et al., 2022; Mohammed & Al-Jaberi, 2021; Ranalli, 2021).”
MethodOnline peer conferences: a window of opportunities for feedback on writing
Xhafaj, D. C. P., & Zaccaron, R. (2024) · Texto Livre Linguagem e Tecnologia · doi:10.1590/1983-3652.2024.46202 · Cited by 2
AWE Feedback on the Effectiveness of the Automatic Scoring System for English Writing
Zhao, X., & Kidston, M. (2022) · Lecture notes in electrical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-4775-9_82 · Cited by 1
Overview of methodological procedures in research on written corrective feedback processing
Coyle, Y., Nicolás‐Conesa, F., & Cerezo, L. (2023) · Research methods in applied linguistics · doi:10.1075/rmal.5.03coy · Cited by 1
The flow must go on: Evaluating the impact of a collocation writing assistant on self-revision
Michta, T., & Frankenberg‐Garcia, A. (2025) · ReCALL · doi:10.1017/s0958344025100293 · Cited by 1
“While users ’ trust has already been investigated in the context of automated feedback (Ranalli, 2021), its role in lexicography remains underexplored.”
Hongxia, H., Razali, A. B., & Zuo, R. (2026) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440251413884 · Cited by 7
“AWE tools provide learners with immediate formative feedback on grammar, vocabulary, structure, and other aspects (e.g., Criterion, Pigai, Grammarly), and are widely used in large-class EFL/ESL writing instruction in higher education (Nunes et al., 2022; Ranalli, 2021).”
An ecological approach to L2 learners’ engagement with written feedback
Long, Z., & Xu, J. (2026) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2026.101028 · Cited by 1
Evaluating GPT-generated feedback for beginning-level Spanish writing: An exploratory study
Rutté, A. M. M. D., & Correa, M. (2026) · ReCALL · doi:10.1017/s0958344026100469 · Cited by 1
“As Ranalli (2021) emphasizes, learners with higher confidence in these tools ’ accuracy are more likely to use feedback effectively, which reinforces the importance of transparency and intuitive design in such systems.”
From ‘The system said’ to ‘my argument requires’: cultivating self-mediation with AWE feedback
Qu, P., Qu, Y., Dongmei, W. A. N. G., & Wang, R. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2026.2639460 · Cited by 2
From Red Pen to Algorithm: How Do L2 Learners Engage with Human and Automated Feedback?
Zohali, L., Storch, N., & Knoch, U. (2026) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/00336882261419844 · Cited by 2
“On the other hand, students ’ positive judgement of teacher-generated text-level feedback might be attributed to their greater con fi dence and trust in human-generated feedback, particularly for addressing advanced writing concerns, as suggested by Ranalli (2021).”
Students’ psychological biases towards teacher and AI-generated feedback: an experimental study
Haiyan, Y. U. (2026) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-026-04568-5 · Cited by 1
Trust and Reliance on AI in Education: AI Literacy and Need for Cognition as Moderators
Pitts, G., Rani, N., & Mildort, W. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-29763-1_28 · Cited by 4
Alghamdi, L. H., & Alghizzi, T. M. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16071229 · Cited by 3
Jian, W., & Tengyao, Z. (2022) · The Journal of English Literacy Education The Teaching and Learning of English as a Foreign Language · doi:10.36706/jele.v9i2.18349 · Cited by 1
Synthesizing Effective Strategies for IT-Mediated Writing: A Meta-Ethnographic Study
Fadhly, F. Z. (2021) · Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics · doi:10.21462/ijefl.v6i2.610 · Cited by 1
“With the approach of the qualitative study, Chen (2012), Ranalli (2021), Kessler, Bikowski, & Boggs (2012) and Lee (2013). investigated this issue.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialChen, J. (2023) · Journal of Language Teaching · doi:10.54475/jlt.2023.029 · Cited by 2
Bibliometrically and systematically analyzing automated writing evaluation for English learning
Wu, T., & Yu, Z. (2023) · Forum for Linguistic Studies · doi:10.59400/fls.v5i3.1907 · Cited by 1
“Previous studies mostly concluded that high engagement was due to learners’ writing proficiency, while learners’ trust was a determining factor (Ranalli, 2021).”
ResultA Case Study Exploring the Effects of Generative Ai on Incidental Language LearningPreprint
Daly, N. P. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4615977 · Cited by 1
Frontiers in Explainable Automated Writing Evaluation
Inui, K., Ishii, Y., Matsubayashi, Y., Inoue, N., Naito, S., Isobe, Y., Funayama, H., & KIKUCHI, S. (2023) · IEICE ESS FUNDAMENTALS REVIEW · doi:10.1587/essfr.16.4_289
Mohammed, N. I. M. (2024) · European Journal of Linguistics · doi:10.47941/ejl.1802
“Ranalli, (2021) investigated the extent to which engagement supports learning from, and is influenced by, trust in automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback.”
BackgroundResearching Feedback: Mixed‐Methods Research
Ene, E. (2025) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal20020
Exploring the Effect of Corrective Feedback Through QuillBot on EFL Learners’ Writing SkillPreprint
Azimi, M., & Farahian, M. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5014261 · Cited by 2
Review of Kohls & Casanave (2023): Perspectives on good writing in applied linguistics and TESOL
D.A.Ergasheva, M. M., & Nurmukhamedov, U. (2024) · Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes · doi:10.1075/jerpp.00023.erg
Wang, Q. (2025) · International Journal of High Speed Electronics and Systems · doi:10.1142/s0129156425407983
Li, L., Li, J., Guo, B., & Zhu, Y. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5378799
Zhang, Z. (. (2025) · Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja)
Using screen-cast to explore language learners’ engagement with teacher oral feedback across time
Liu, J., & Su, W. (2025) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688251368646
Leveraging Natural Language Processing in Practical Skills Education and Training
Matchanova, B., RUZMETOVA, Z. D., Sapaeva, R., & Ahmad, M. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-4217-7.ch001
Student Engagement with ChatGPT and Teacher Feedback in L2 Writing
Liang, J. (2026) · International Journal of Changes in Education · doi:10.47852/bonviewijce62026891
“However, students adopted a proofreading instead of a learning orientation toward automated feedback, perhaps because most of it included specific corrections, thus requiring little work on their cognition [12].”
Generative Artificial Intelligence's Impact on English Language Education
McDermott, B., & Ross, R. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-3000-6.ch012
The AI Paradox in L2 Writing: Why Helpful Feedback Creates Unhelpful Dependency in Higher EducationPreprint
SEDDIKI, M., & Korichi, S. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8731897/v1
The AI Paradox in L2 Writing: Why Helpful Feedback Creates Unhelpful Dependency in Higher EducationPreprint
SEDDIKI, M., & Korichi, S. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8731897/v2 · Cited by 2
Ethical awareness versus actual practices: Chinese doctoral students in AI-assisted academic writing
Feng, H., & Li, K. (2026) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amag013
Sun, J. (2026) · International Journal of Multilingualism · doi:10.1080/14790718.2026.2616432
“This finding was also consistent with Zhang (2023), who acknowledged that students are more willing to listen to advice from instructors they trust, and with Ranalli (2021), who showed that socio-affordances associated with trusted feedback enhanced learning adjustment.”
Revisiting Students' Lack of Visible Response to Feedback in Second Language Writing
Tang, S., & Yu, S. (2026) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70626
Wei, J., & Nishimoto, K. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791355
“More recent research shows that while AI grammar tools can improve surface textual correctness, users’ understanding of underlying grammatical rules does not improve correspondingly [50, 70].”
GAI vs. AWE in writing feedback: a comparison from student engagement perspective
Yang, F., Qian, L., & Li, K. (2026) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410.2026.2659713 · Cited by 1
Yang, X., Carless, D. R., & Lin, J. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6643238
The Blind Spots in Automated Feedback Generation for Academic Writing
Sasaki, T., Conijn, R., & Willemsen, M. C. (2026) · International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) · doi:10.1145/3785022.3785120
Uzun, M., Demir, İ., & Höl, D. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9876127/v1
Junior high school students’ engagement with automated feedback in EFL writing: a case from China
Lin, Y., & Guo, Y. (2026) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2025-0122
“Thus, trust-related issues have also been revealed as being central to students ’ engagement (Ranalli 2021).”
He, C., & Zhou, P. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6878934
Huo, H., & Zhang, L. J. (2026) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2026.101084
Designing AI Scaffolds for Game-Based Reading and Writing
Zafar, F., & Charles, T. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7472-7.ch006
Yao, X.-C. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1835593
“Studies by Wilson and Czik (2016), Koltovskaia (2020), Ranalli (2021), and Huawei and Aryadoust (2023) show that learners respond to automated feedback in different ways: some treat it as useful guidance, some remain uncertain about its credibility, and some recognize problems but do not know how…”
Dai, Z. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1829268 · Cited by 4
“This finding extends previous work on automated and generative AI feedback by showing that students’ engagement with feedback, rather than feedback availability alone, is central to learning from AI-supported writing tools (Ranalli, 2021; Zhan and Yan, 2025).”
Wang, L.-J. (2026) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2026.101331 · Cited by 2
Akçin, D. C. (2026) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440261445620 · Cited by 1
“A substantial body of empirical work indicates that AI-assisted corrective feedback can lead to improvements in grammatical accuracy by enabling immediate, repeated engagement with learner errors (Link et al., 2022; Ranalli, 2021).”
Cai, B., Fu, H. C., He, Z., Wang, Y., & Song, Y. (2026) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2026.2685747
Grammarly: A Modern Ally in Language Teaching. From NLP Theory to Classroom Practice
Τσακαλίδου, Σ. (2026) · International Journal of Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.46300/9109.2026.20.15
The role of psychological contract in sustaining learner engagement with AWE systems
Hu, X., Hu, J., Chen, S., & Li, Z. (2026) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2026.101101
Generative AI for Second Language Writing Feedback, Assessment, and Instruction
Li, M., Han, J., & Taha, G. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009657334 · Cited by 1
Maqbali, A. A., & Taga, O. (2026) · Language, Technology, and Social Media. · doi:10.70211/ltsm.3026-7196.737
Companionship and Control: Experiencing ChatGPT as Writer-Identity Work in L2 Academic Writing
Su, Y., Tan, X., & Thomas, N. (2026) · Digital studies in language and literature · doi:10.1515/dsll-2026-0024
“This positioning aligns with broader research on digital writing support tools, where technology mediates students ’ cognitive and metacognitive engagement with writing tasks (Ranalli 2021).”
From Small Dilemmas to Structural Responsibility
Kılıçkaya, F. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-1232-1.ch011
Reconceptualizing Assessment Autonomy in TEFL
Köksal, D., Genç, L. G., & Uygun, E. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-9639-2.ch001
Impostor-related experiences and generative AI in a Jordanian EFL writing course
Aldamen, H. A. K., Almashour, M., & Jarrah, M. A. (2026) · Discover Computing · doi:10.1007/s10791-026-10532-z
“Ranalli, [22] extended this concern to automated feedback, showing that trust is central to whether students view feedback as educationally valuable.”
InfluentialEFL university students’ perceptions of ChatGPT’s impact on English writing content
Nguyen, T. B., & Huynh, T. N. P. (2026) · Proceedings of International Academia · doi:10.65956/procia.2026.147
“…the depth and originality of their ideas while decreasing writing autonomy, the study shares findings with Aisyi (2024), Deep et al. (2025), the emphasis by Lee et al. (2024) and Ranalli (2021) on a possible decline in critical thinking and independence if learners rely on ChatGPT excessively.”
Do Students Learn from Writing Feedback from an AI Teaching Assistant?
Liu, X., Wei, Z., Baker, R. S., Pankiewicz, M., Dai, Y., & Vanacore, K. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-24819-0_20
Researcher positionality statements in applied linguistics
Warren, A. N., & Yazan, B. (2026) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amag075
Exploring AI-supported peer feedback in EFL writing: How do learners engage beyond the classroom?
Liu, K., & Liu, H. (2026) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/00336882261487215
Dueraman, B., & Boonsuk, Y. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2026.2734840
Ming, K. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7493673
Akdağ, U., & Kılıç, M. (2026) · Anadolu Journal Of Educational Sciences International · doi:10.18039/ajesi.1705730
Ming, K. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7506510
Pang, S., Mamoon, M., & Song, P. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7496158
Xiong, M., & Teo, T. P. (2026) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.70235 · Cited by 1
Boumediene, H., Aljohani, A., & Bouakkaz, M. (2026) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107964 · Cited by 1
Meenen, F. V., Coertjens, L., Verschuren, F., Catrysse, L., & Masson, N. (2026) · Studies In Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2026.101692
Comparing ChatGPT and teacher feedback for EFL writing development
Babaee, N. N. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-02329-5 · Cited by 1
“This pattern aligns with research emphasizing active engagement, trust, and selective uptake in AI-assisted revision [26, 28, 39, 45].”
Merrikhi, P. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-11277915/v1
Tarrayo, V. N. (2026) · International Journal of Business Communication · doi:10.1177/23294884261500740
Metadata
- Authors
- Ranalli, J.
- Affiliations
- Iowa State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ranalli, Jim
- ORCID
- Ranalli, Jim
- Venue
- Journal of Second Language Writing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-06
- Volume
- 52
- Pages
- 100816
- ISSN
- 1060-3743 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3148248532
- Semantic Scholar
- bc20929cd12bf53ca312d3549b91fc4e442bebd3
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 68 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 69.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Second Language 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
- automated writing evaluation, student engagement with feedback, Grammarly, second language writing, learning orientation, feedback acceptance, English as a foreign language
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
