The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement
Abstract
Recent years have witnessed an increasing interest in the use of automated writing evaluation (AWE) in second language writing classrooms. This increase is partially due to the belief that AWE can assist teachers by allowing them to devote more feedback to higher-level (HL) writing skills, such as content and organization, while the technology addresses lower-level (LL) skills, such as grammar. As is speculated, student revisions will then be positively impacted. However, little evidence has supported these claims, calling into question the impact of AWE on teaching and learning. The current study explored these claims by comparing two second language writing classes that were assigned to either an AWE + teacher feedback condition or a teacher-only-feedback condition. Findings suggest that using AWE as a complement to teacher feedback did not have a significant impact on the amount of HL teacher feedback, but the teacher who did not use AWE tended to provide a greater amount of LL feedback than AWE alone. Furthermore, students seemed to revise the teacher’s LL feedback more frequently than LL feedback from the computer. Interestingly, students retained their improvement in accuracy in the long-term when they had access to AWE, but students who did not have access appeared to have lower retention. We explain the relevance of our findings in relation to an argument-based validation framework to align our work with state-of-the-art research in the field and contribute to a broader discussion about how AWE can be best provided to support second language writing development.
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
“Link et al. (2022), Huang and Wilson (2021), and Nunes et al. (2022)consistently emphasized the role of AI-powered writing evaluation tools, identifying that these automated systems effectively enhanced learners' writing quality.”
From The Role of AI-Assisted Learning in Academic Writing: A Mixed-Methods Study on Chinese as a Second Language Students (2025) · cites this paper as Link et al., 2022
In the citing paper
“These tools are particularly effective in identifying and addressing surface-level issues, such as grammar, punctuation, and spelling, while enabling teachers to focus on higher-order writing skills like idea development and coherence (Link et al., 2022).”
From Enhancing EFL Writing Revision Practices: The Impact of AI- and Teacher-Generated Feedback and Their Sequences (2025) · cites this paper as Link et al., 2022
Citations
Cites
Language Learning with Technology
Castillo, D. G. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-2697-5 · Cited by 2,211
Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores
Kane, M. T. (2013) · Journal of Educational Measurement · doi:10.1111/jedm.12000 · Cited by 2,110
How Big Is “Big”? Interpreting Effect Sizes in L2 Research
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12079 · Cited by 1,960
The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes
Truscott, J. (1996) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x · Cited by 1,874
Formative assessment: a critical review
Bennett, R. E. (2011) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969594x.2010.513678 · Cited by 1,498
Towards an Organic Approach to Investigating CAF in Instructed SLA: The Case of Complexity
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amp044 · Cited by 1,392
Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing
Lu, X. (2010) · International Journal of Corpus Linguistics · doi:10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu · Cited by 1,127
Error feedback in L2 writing classes
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(01)00039-x · Cited by 981
Automated Evaluation of Text and Discourse with Coh-Metrix
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511894664 · Cited by 932
Lu, X. (2011) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.5054/tq.2011.240859 · Cited by 814
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Attali Y., 2004, Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME)
- Chen C., 2008, Language Learning & Technology, 12, 94
- Cotos E., 2012, Technology across writing contexts and tasks, CALICO Monograph Series, 10, 81
- Cotos E., 2017, Special Issue in Language Learning and Technology, 21, 104
- Grimes D., 2010, The Journal of Technology, Language, and Assessment, 8
- Karim K., 2018, Language Teaching Research
- Lee J., 2012, A hybrid use of Criterion® and teacher feedback in process writing.
- Plakans L., 2019, Language Testing, 36 (2), 161–179
- Quick Placement Test. (2001). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Rahimi M., 2019, Language Teaching Research
- Victori, M. (1995). EFL writing knowledge and strategies: An interactive study (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (Spain), Barcelona.
- Warschauer M., 2010, Language Learning & Technology, 14, 3
- Yoon H.-J., 2016, TESOL Quarterly, 51
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Guo, K., & Wang, D. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0 · Cited by 449
AI in the Foreign Language Classroom: A Pedagogical Overview of Automated Writing Assistance Tools
Alharbi, W. (2023) · Education Research International · doi:10.1155/2023/4253331 · Cited by 286
Liu, C., Hou, J., Tu, Y.-F., Wang, Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2021.2012812 · Cited by 231
A systematic review of AI-based automated written feedback research
Shi, H., & Aryadoust, V. (2024) · ReCALL · doi:10.1017/s0958344023000265 · Cited by 222
Wang, C. (2025) · Technology Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-024-09744-3 · Cited by 212
“Adopting NLP to analyze language features, diagnose errors, and evaluate essays, AWE was first implemented in high-stakes testing and later adopted in writing classrooms (Link et al., 2022).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Link, S., Mehrzad, M., & Rahimi, M.
- Affiliations
- Oklahoma State University (US)
- Shiraz University (IR)
- Corresponding author
- Rahimi, Mohammad
- Venue
- Computer Assisted Language Learning
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-03-26
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 605-634
- ISSN
- 0958-8221 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-3210
- OpenAlex
- W3013848609
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 52 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 114.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Computer Assisted Language Learning (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, teacher feedback, student revision, second language writing, writing accuracy, grammar feedback, writing development
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
