CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 232EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and TeachingArtificial Intelligence in Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 77 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Incorporating a reflective thinking promoting mechanism into artificial intelligence-supported English writing environments

Liu, Chenchen, Hou, Jierui, Tu, Yun-Fang, Wang, Youmei, Hwang, Gwo-Jen·2023·Interactive Learning Environments
DOI 10.1080/10494820.2021.2012812
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Automated writing feedback supported by artificial intelligence (AI) techniques has attracted the attention of English as Foreign Language (EFL) researchers. However, there is insufficient evidence and inconsistent conclusions on the actual impacts of AI on students’ writing skills. In addition, in the field of EFL writing, there are few studies which have integrated appropriate teaching strategies to promote the effectiveness of EFL writing teaching and learning. Furthermore, it remains unclear how learners can effectively benefit from AI technology-based English writing. To solve this problem, this study proposed a reflective thinking promotion mechanism-based AI-supported English writing (RTP-AIEW) approach to deepen learners’ thinking and improve their EFL writing quality. To investigate the effectiveness of this learning approach, a quasi-experiment was conducted in two EFL writing classes in a university. One class (50 students) was the experimental group learning with the proposed RTP-AIEW approach, while the other class (53 students) was the control group learning with conventional AI-supported EFL writing. The results indicated that the proposed approach not only significantly improved the experimental group students’ English writing performance, but also improved their self-efficacy and self-regulated learning, and significantly reduced their cognitive load. In addition, students’ learning experience and perceptions are also discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10494820.2021.2012812

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

1 retracted

Show all 79 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–232 of 232

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Liu, C., Hou, J., Tu, Y.-F., Wang, Y., & Hwang, G.-J.
Affiliations
  • Wenzhou University (CN)
  • Fu Jen Catholic University (TW)
  • Kaohsiung Medical University (TW)
Corresponding author
Hwang, Gwo-Jen
ORCID
Venue
Interactive Learning Environments
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2021-12-10
Volume
31
Issue
9
Pages
5614-5632
ISSN
  • 1049-4820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-5191
DOI
10.1080/10494820.2021.2012812
OpenAlex
W4200268598
Cited by
231
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 88 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 9
FWCI
88.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Interactive Learning Environments (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
EFL writing, reflective thinking, automated writing feedback, writing self-efficacy, student self-regulation, cognitive load, writing quality, learner perceptions, writing instruction strategies

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