Cited by 49EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and TeachingSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Automated writing evaluation use in second language classrooms: A research synthesis

Open access
Karatay, Yasin, Karatay, Leyla·2024·System

Abstract

Traditionally used solely for assessment purposes, automated writing evaluation technologies have increased their popularity as an aid in the second language (L2) writing classrooms, especially in the last decade. In addition to the feedback capabilities of AWE and its effect on L2 writing quality, an increasing number of naturalistic, classroom-based studies have demonstrated that L2 students’ engagement with these systems is complex and multi-layered, requiring an in-depth understanding. In this regard, a critical interpretative synthesis of existing literature on student engagement with AWE in L2 classrooms is warranted. Adopting grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) as the guiding methodology, this study surveys and synthesizes the findings of 40 focal studies, published primarily between 2013 and 2021 in the context of second and foreign language. The prominent emergent themes that this synthesis yielded are a) impact of AWE on L2 students’ writing practices, (b) impact of individual and contextual factors on students’ AWE engagement, (c) impact of AWE on teacher feedback in L2 writing classrooms, and (d) limitations elicited in AWE classroom research. Based on this synthesis, the study provides a possible research agenda and suggests practical implications for AWE.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.system.2024.103332

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Revision traces reveal learners' attention allocation and cognitive processing.

    “Writing process research emphasizes that revision traces reveal learners' attention allocation and cognitive processing, especially because keystroke records, timestamps, and version comparison can capture revision frequency, pause duration, and repeated modification points [5].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karatay, Y., & Karatay, L.
Affiliations
  • Cambridge University Press (GB)
  • Iowa State University (US)
Corresponding author
Karatay, Yasin
Venue
System
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-07
Volume
123
Pages
103332
ISSN
0346-251X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4396687678
Cited by
49
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 1
FWCI
77.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • System (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
automated writing evaluation, second language writing, writing feedback, teacher feedback, writing practices, foreign language writing, classroom technology use

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