CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 141EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and TeachingSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing the effects of ChatGPT and automated writing evaluation on students’ writing and ideal L2 writing self

Open access
Shi, Huawei, Chai, Ching Sing, Zhou, Sihan, Aubrey, Scott·2026·Computer Assisted Language Learning
DOI 10.1080/09588221.2025.2454541
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The affordances of ChatGPT in language learning and teaching have gained increasing traction. While studies began to investigate the potential of ChatGPT as a feedback provider, little attention was given to ChatGPT’s potential impact on students’ writing performance and the ideal L2 writing self vis-à-vis the established automated writing evaluation systems (AWE). To address these gaps, a sequential explanatory mixed methods design was adopted. One hundred and fifty second-year university students from three writing classes in a Chinese public university were recruited and randomly divided into a ChatGPT group, an AWE group, and a control group. After an eleven-week intervention, the ANCOVA results showed that while the ChatGPT group scored significantly higher than the AWE group and the control group in post-writing performance as measured by their writing score, in terms of students’ ideal L2 writing self, the ChatGPT group performed significantly lower than the AWE group with a medium effect size. Qualitative analysis of students’ reflection papers revealed students’ (over)reliance on the tool and the accompanying loss of creativity and agency. Pedagogical implications as well as directions for future research are also discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09588221.2025.2454541

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 61 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Burstein J. Chodorow M. & Leacock C. (2003). Criterion online essay evaluation: An application for automated evaluation of student essays [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Acapulco: Mexico.
  2. 10.64152/10125/73570 · DOI
  3. Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  4. Shi, J., & Shuai, P. (2010). English writing: From sentence to paragraph to theme. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
  5. Stockwell, G., & Wang, Y. (2024b). Motivation and autonomy. In R. Hampel & U. Stickler (Eds.), The Bloomsbury Handbook of Language Learning and Technology (pp. 144–156). Bloomsbury Academic.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Shi, H., Chai, C. S., Zhou, S., & Aubrey, S.
Affiliations
Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Shi, Huawei
ORCID
Venue
Computer Assisted Language Learning
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2025-02-03
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
1148-1175
ISSN
  • 0958-8221 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-3210
DOI
10.1080/09588221.2025.2454541
OpenAlex
W4407108474
Cited by
109
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 87 · 2025: 22
FWCI
387.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Computer Assisted Language Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
ChatGPT, automated writing evaluation, second language writing, writing performance, AI-generated feedback, student creativity, student agency, university students

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