Enhancing the grammatical accuracy of EFL writing by using an AWE-assisted process approach
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?
These findings support previous research demonstrating that AWE software can positively influence the grammatical accuracy of L2 students' writing.
“These findings support previous research which demonstrate that AWE software can positively influence the grammatical accuracy of L2 students' writing (Liao, 2016; Wang et al. , 2013).”
From Examining the impact of Grammarly on the quality of mobile L2 writing (2021) · cites this paper as Liao, 2016
Cites
The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 · Cited by 4,910 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Fourth, such an AWE system has an optimal effect when learners use it for multiple rounds of essay writing because, as Schmidt (1990) and Tode (2008) have asserted, noticing facilitates only preliminary registration; additional opportunities for noticing must be provided for learners to process the…”
BackgroundError correction, revision, and learning
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y.-P. (2008) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003 · Cited by 414 · 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
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 · see citing works
Examining the impact of Grammarly on the quality of mobile L2 writing
Dizon, G., & Gayed, J. M. (2021) · The JALT CALL Journal · doi:10.29140/jaltcall.v17n2.336 · Cited by 138 · 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
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
Yousofi, R. (2022) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2022.2142446 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Tang, L., Shen, K., Le, H., Shen, Y., Tan, S., Zhao, Y., Juelich, T., Li, X., Gašević, D., & Fan, Y. (2024) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.13036 · Cited by 25 · 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
- Authors
- Liao, H.-C.
- Affiliations
- National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences (TW)
- Corresponding author
- Liao, Hui-Chuan
- Venue
- System
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-11
- Volume
- 62
- Pages
- 77-92
- ISSN
- 0346-251X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2300743177
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 23.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- System (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Keywords
- automated writing evaluation, EFL writing, grammatical accuracy, process writing, writing revision, learner agency, learner types, metacognitive strategies, learner perceptions
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
