Cited by 176Writing and Handwriting EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackEducational Technology and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Automated Writing Evaluation and Feedback: Multiple Metrics of Efficacy

Wilson, Joshua, Roscoe, Rod D.·2020·Journal of Educational Computing Research

DOI 10.1177/0735633119830764

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present study extended research on the effectiveness of automated writing evaluation (AWE) systems. Sixth graders were randomly assigned by classroom to an AWE condition that used Project Essay Grade Writing ( n = 56) or a word-processing condition that used Google Docs ( n = 58). Effectiveness was evaluated using multiple metrics: writing self-efficacy, holistic writing quality, performance on a state English language arts test, and teachers' perceptions of AWE's social validity. Path analyses showed that after controlling for pretest measures, composing condition had no effect on holistic writing quality, but students in the AWE condition had more positive writing self-efficacy and better performance on the state English language arts test. Posttest writing self-efficacy partially mediated the effect of composing condition on state test performance. Teachers reported positive perceptions of AWE's social validity. Results emphasize the importance of using multiple metrics and considering both contextual factors and AWE implementation methods when evaluating AWE effectiveness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0735633119830764

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Using multivariate statistics
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983) · Cited by 79,882
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · Cited by 25,266
Structural Equations with Latent Variables
Bollen, K. A. (1989) · Wiley series in probability and statistics · doi:10.1002/9781118619179 · Cited by 17,944
Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research
Brown, T. A. (2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2769 · Cited by 15,621
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006) · Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x · Cited by 12,604
A Reliability Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291170 · Cited by 7,330 · cited 1×
“To assess the ﬁt of the path models, we examined the chi-square test, the standardized root mean residual (SRMR), comparative ﬁt index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980).”
Method
SOCIAL VALIDITY: THE CASE FOR SUBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT or HOW APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS IS FINDING ITS HEART 1
Wolf, M. M. (1978) · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis · doi:10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203 · Cited by 3,176
Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations.
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.8.594 · Cited by 2,791
Statistically based tests for the number of common factors
Steiger, J. H. (1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,413
Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. A. (2006) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5 · Cited by 2,373

Show all 75 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

Archer A. L., 2011, Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching
Balfour S. P., 2013, Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 40
Bennett R. E., 2004, Moving the field forward some thoughts on validity and automated scoring. Research Memorandum (RM-04-01)
Graham S., 2016, Teaching secondary students to write effectively
Grimes D., 2010, Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8, 1
Keith T. Z., 2003, Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective, 147
Muthén L. K., Mplus user's guide
National Center for Education Statistics, 2012, The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2011
Page E. B., 2003, Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective, 43
Shermis M. D., 2016, Handbook of writing research, 395
Skalicky S., 2016, Advances in Language and Literacy Studies, 7, 248
Wilson J., 2014, Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 12, 93

Sorted by citations

Items 101–176 of 176

Automated Essay Feedback Generation in the Learning of Writing: A Review of the Field
Lagakis, P., & Demetriadis, S. (2022) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-96296-8_40 · Cited by 3
University students' cyclical self-assessment process mediated by artificial intelligence in academic writing
Hapsari, Y. T., Drajatı, N. A., & Setyaningsih, E. (2023) · Journal of English Language Teaching Innovations and Materials (Jeltim) · doi:10.26418/jeltim.v5i1.59858 · Cited by 3
Understanding User Experience with AI-Assisted Writing Service
Kim, G., Kim, J., & Kim, H. K. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-35894-4_19 · Cited by 4
An empirical study of a data-driven personalized diagnostic feedback strategy to enhance Chinese primary school pupils’ writing performance
Yang, G., Li, J., Zhou, W., Zheng, Y.-Q., & Zeng, Q.-F. (2024) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2024.2353204 · Cited by 3
A Correlation Study of Automated Writing Evaluation System (Grammarly) and Chinese EFL Learners’ Writing Self-Efficacy in Their Self-Regulated Learning
Su, Y. (2024) · Journal of Electrical Systems · doi:10.52783/jes.3904 · Cited by 5
Reducing English Major Students’ Writing Errors With an Automated Writing Evaluation System: Evidence From Eye-Tracking Technology
Cai, B., He, Z., Fu, H. C., Zheng, Y., & Song, Y. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2025.3547321 · Cited by 4
THE ANONYMOUS TEACHERS’ FACTORS OF ASSESSING PARAGRAPH WRITING
Rahayu, E. Y. (2020) · Journal of English for Academic and Specific Purposes (JEASP) · doi:10.18860/jeasp.v3i1.9208 · Cited by 3
Effect of Automated Writing Evaluation in Higher Education Academic Writing Performance
Gavina, M. A., & Ibay-Pamo, L. M. (2024) · EDULANGUE · doi:10.20414/edulangue.v6i2.8300 · Cited by 3
Effectiveness of automated corrective feedback on EFL learners’ writing proficiency and perception
Shang, H. (2024) · Asia Pacific Journal of Education · doi:10.1080/02188791.2024.2347318 · Cited by 2
The effectiveness of Grammarly application and teacher feedback for undergraduate EFL students' writing skills
Miranty, D., Widiati, U., Cahyono, B. Y., & Sharif, T. I. S. T. (2025) · Innoeduca International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation · doi:10.24310/ijtei.111.2025.20521 · Cited by 8
Identifying active ingredients and uptake patterns in the implementation of an AI-based writing support tool: Insights from a randomized controlled trial
Huang, Y., Palermo, C., & Wilson, J. (2025) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100479 · Cited by 2
Self-citation
AI as a game changer in inclusive higher education: bridging educational gaps through formative assessment
Finkelstein, I., & Soffer-Vital, S. (2025) · Educational Research and Evaluation · doi:10.1080/13803611.2025.2596373 · Cited by 4
Can teacher feedback be substituted by Gen-AI? A comparative study of writing scores, feedback characteristics, revision and motivation
Yang, C., Shao, J., & Guo, Y. (2025) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2025.2609877 · Cited by 4
Designing a critical AI literacy program for K-8 STEM education: Adopting a community-centered approach
Akgün, S., Choi, K., & Lee, H. R. (2026) · Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research · doi:10.1186/s43031-026-00155-1 · Cited by 6
Can algorithm-based feedback help students to write better? A meta-analysis exploring surface- and deep-level outcomes
Scherer, S., Graham, S., & Busse, V. (2026) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2026.101034 · Cited by 2
LAWE-CL2: Multi-agent LLM-based automated writing evaluation system integrating linguistic features with fine-tuning for Chinese L2 writing assessment
Wang, X., Yang, Q., Hao, Y., Wang, Z., & Guo, S. (2026) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2026.101051 · Cited by 3
The role of AI-mediated metacognitive interventions in EFL writing development: A cross-sectional study of textual accuracy, lexical sophistication, and cohesion
Fan, K., & Gao, T. (2026) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107069 · Cited by 6
Improving Pigai as an Automated Writing Evaluation System: Considerations for Refinement
Zhang, X. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.795725 · Cited by 2
Students’ essay writing anxiety: A narrative study of Indonesian tertiary EFL learners
Ro’ufiyati, D. F., & Mahbub, M. A. (2023) · JEES (Journal of English Educators Society) · doi:10.21070/jees.v8i1.1717 · Cited by 2
How Large Language Model-Based Generative AI Supports EFL Students’ Writing—A Case Study of ChatGPT
张, 田. (2025) · Advances in Education · doi:10.12677/ae.2025.152353 · Cited by 2
Fostering a ‘Human with AI’ approach for evaluating students’ writing in English
Al-kadi, A. M. T. (2025) · Studies in Linguistics Culture and FLT · doi:10.46687/vfbz9792 · Cited by 3
Meta-Analysis of Using AI-Based Feedback Systems in Developing College Students’ Academic Writing Skills
Qassrawi, R. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-2532-1_20 · Cited by 2
Saudi Graduate Students’ Perceptions Toward Automated Writing Feedback for Improving Academic Writing
Alsaweed, W. (2022) · International Journal of English Linguistics · doi:10.5539/ijel.v12n6p48 · Cited by 2
Investigating the impact of automated instruments used for assessing the writing skill: Perspectives of language e-learners
Khasawneh, M. A. S. (2024) · Research Journal in Advanced Humanities · doi:10.58256/4fd2qt78 · Cited by 2
Ai Generated vs. Peer Feedback in Esl Writing:Effects on Writing Skill, Self-Efficacy, And EnjoymentPreprint
Fang, Y. G., Tan, Y., Zuo, C., & Boubaker, A. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5115438 · Cited by 2
Impact of Research-Informed Integration of AWE Among Chinese EFL Undergraduates
Huang, S. H., & Chen, D. (2024) · International Journal of English Linguistics · doi:10.5539/ijel.v14n2p26 · Cited by 1
Looking Ahead: AI-Supported Writing in the Language Classroom
Şahin, D. (2025) · Özgür Yayınları eBooks · doi:10.58830/ozgur.pub773.c3206 · Cited by 1
Sustaining EFL Learners’ Motivation in Writing Classrooms Via Computer-Based and Peer Feedback
Alnasser, S. M. N., & Almoaily, M. (2026) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440261423405 · Cited by 1
A meta-synthesis of automatic writing evaluation research: trends and developments over a decade
Tseng, W., Chen, S., & Dong, T. H. (2026) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-026-10601-6 · Cited by 3
AI-Powered Automated Feedback for ESL Writing: A Large-Scale Quality and Cost Analysis Toward SDG 4
Zhong, H., Luo, H., Lai, S., Chen, Y., Xie, F., Guo, C., & Sok, M. (2025) · doi:10.1145/3797552.3797797 · Cited by 1
Modeling the reading-to-writing pipeline: Knowledge graph and LLM-based assessment framework for source-based writing
Yun, B., Moe, M., Flynn, L. E., Öncel, P., & Allen, L. K. (2026) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2026.101098 · Cited by 1
Replicating and expanding a validity argument for eRevise as a formative assessment: Empirical support for theories of conceptual change
Correnti, R. J., Matsumura, L. C., Wang, E. L., Litman, D., Liu, Z., Zhang, H., & Li, T. (2026) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2026.101095 · Cited by 1
Hybrid intelligence feedback systems in design thinking development: Stage‐specific insights on pedagogical effects and characteristics of generative AI and instructors
Fei, X. (2026) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.70080 · Cited by 1
A Review of the Effects of Automated Writing Evaluation on Learners’ English Writing Ability
Cao, C., & Wang, Z. (2023) · Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media · doi:10.54254/2753-7048/13/20230874 · Cited by 1
Human vs. AI
Kınık, B., & Çetin, H. (2023) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-0353-5.ch009 · Cited by 1
ERROR ANALYSIS OF USING SIMPLE PRESENT TENSE IN STUDENTS WRITING DESCRIPTIVE TEXT AT THE TENTH GRADERS OF SMKN 2 KUDUS
Syahdanny, B. A. (2023) · SIMPLE International Journal of English Education · doi:10.24176/simple.v1i2.10819 · Cited by 1
A Study on the Effectiveness of Automated Essay Marking in the Context of a Blended Learning Course Design
Yu, W., & Barker, T. (2020) · Education Language and Sociology Research · doi:10.22158/elsr.v1n1p20 · Cited by 1
Construction of Intelligent Evaluation Platform Based on Random Matrix iWrite College English Writing
Gao, L., Xu, J., Xiao-da, F., & Li, J. (2022) · Mathematical Problems in Engineering · doi:10.1155/2022/6402418 · Cited by 1
Analytical Techniques for Developing Argumentative Writing in STEMPreprint
Davies, P., Gao, Y., Muresan, S., & Passonneau, R. J. (2021) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.13726720.v1
Human, AI, Robot Teaming and the Future of Work: Barriers and Opportunities for Advancement
Chiou, E. K., Holder, E. W., Dolgov, I., McDowell, K., Menthe, L., Roscoe, R. D., & Zaveri, S. (2020) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181320641018 · Cited by 1
Self-citation
Analytical Techniques for Developing Argumentative Writing in STEMPreprint
Davies, P., Goa, Y., Muresan, S., & Passonneau, R. J. (2021) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.13726720
Empirische Studien zur horizontalen Vernetzung in naturwissenschaftlichen Schulbüchern und zur Förderung situationalen Interesses im fächerübergreifenden Unterricht
Lewing, J. (2023) · doi:10.53846/goediss-9723
The Traditional Game of Throwing Sandals in Learning Narrative Writing for Elementary School Students
Anggraeni, S. W., Rahman, Nurzaman, I., Nurhuda, A., & Alpian, Y. (2023) · Jurnal Ilmiah Sekolah Dasar · doi:10.23887/jisd.v7i2.53540
Automated Writing Evaluation for Second Language Placement TestingPreprint
Link, S., Yang, H., Li, Z., & Koltovskaia, S. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4897693
Integrating Automated Writing Evaluation into EFL Writing PracticePreprint
Alshehri, M. G. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4793625/v1
Exploring AI Applications in Essay-Based Assignments: Affordances and Risks
Alzahrani, A. A., & Zheng, Y. (2024) · Artificial intelligence · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1008230
Comparisons of AI and Human Writing Feedback:Student Perceptions in a University EFL Workshop
Moore, N., & Kim, C. U. (2025) · Modern English Education · doi:10.18095/meeso.2025.26.1.230
Using Bard-Generated Feedback on Enhancing Students’ Paragraph Writing Skills at a High School in Hanoi: An Action Research Project
Ngoc, T. P. N. (2025) · International Journal of Social Science and Human Research · doi:10.47191/ijsshr/v8-i7-15
AWE for Formative Purposes in the EFL Context:
Peñarroja, M. R. (2025) · International Journal of English Studies · doi:10.6018/ijes.611761
Teacher–AI Collaboration in Formative Writing Assessment: Hybrid Feedback Models with Grammarly in ELTPreprint
Nhan, L. K. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5493567
Level-specific feedback generation for scene descriptions via fine-tuning multimodal large language models
Xie, Z., Chan, T.-T., & Yu, P. L. H. (2025) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100510
Teacher–AI Collaboration in Formative Writing Assessment: Hybrid Feedback Models with Grammarly in ELTPreprint
Nhan, L. K. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5822271
Effects of an AI-Based Writing Assistant on First-Language Writing Performance and Self-Regulation: Evidence from a Mixed Methods Study
Helaluddin, H., Ismail, G. A., Ulfah, S. M., Fitriyyah, D., Wati, S., & Rohbiah, T. S. (2026) · European Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.12973/eu-jer.15.2.669
The Impact of the iWrite Automated Writing Evaluation System on University EFL Students’ Writing Performance and Writing Anxiety
Du, J., & Nordin, N. R. M. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16030411
AI Corrective Feedback and Thai EFL Writing: A Literature-Based Review
Li, S., & Ngonkum, S. (2026) · Journal of Education and Learning Reviews · doi:10.60027/jelr.2026.e2855
AI-Mediated Feedback in L2 Writing: Characteristics of Prompts, AI Tools, and Learners’ Feedback Use
Kim, T. H., & Hoa, C. T. H. (2026) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-18392-7_10
Integrating socratic questioning and synchronous video feedback to enhance ESL learners’ narrative writing in online learning
Eak, A. D., & Annamalai, N. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2026.2658187 · Cited by 1
Perceptions of L2 Writing Support Through Generative AI
Garcés-Manzanera, A. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/407453
When and how does pedagogically enriched LLM feedback outperform corrective automated writing evaluation? A learning trajectory analysis of writing improvement
Zhang, D., Hong, X., & Qi, Y. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101121 · Cited by 2
Learning Assessment and Students’ Self-Regulated Learning in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Interactions and Impacts
郭, 文. (2026) · Advances in Education · doi:10.12677/ae.2026.1651004
Assessing Teacher Readiness and Ethical Awareness of AI Tools for Writing Assessment: A Case from Indian Higher EducationPreprint
Sinha, A., Goswami, R., Nag, A., & Nayak, R. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9698381/v1
Intelligent automated essay scoring under uncertainty using type 2 neutrosophic ontologies
Darwish, S. M., Bagi, N. A., & El-Shoafy, N. A. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-54596-9
Beyond Automated Scoring: Toward Dialogic Assessment and Interactional Fairness in Human–AI Collaboration
Lee, T., Lee, S., & Kim, S. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-29791-4_30
The Impact of AI-Assisted English Teaching Classrooms on TESOL Teachers’ Teaching Beliefs: A Systematic Review
Hou, Y. (2026) · SHS Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/shsconf/202623502004
From Human Raters to AI: A Critical Review of Research on ChatGPT in Writing Assessment
Wang, Y.-M., Harmer, P., & Xue, C. (2026) · Futurity Education · doi:10.57125/fed.2026.06.12
Sustainable L2 writing pedagogy in Turkish higher education: Effects of AI-mediated feedback on self-regulated learning and writing performance
Selvi, A. E., Irgatoğlu, A., Yurttadur, O., & DAĞBAŞI, G. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0344618 · Cited by 3
The Use of ChatGPT Chatbot in Enhancing Writing Skills of ESL Students
Yaprak, Z. (2026) · Journal of Language Research · doi:10.51726/jlr.1879060
ChatGPT 5.5 as an Automated Corrective Feedback Tool: Effects on the Writing Performance of EFL Learners
Maqbali, A. A., & Taga, O. (2026) · Language, Technology, and Social Media. · doi:10.70211/ltsm.3026-7196.737
AI-Generated vs. Peer Feedback in EFL Writing: Effects on Writing Skills, Self-Efficacy, and Enjoyment by Proficiency Levels
Fang, Y., Tan, Y., Zuo, C., & Boubaker, A. (2026) · International Conference on Computer Science and Technologies in Education (CSTE) · doi:10.1109/cste69562.2026.11649771
Toward More Effective Automated Writing Evaluation Through Relational Trust
Goldshtein, M., Chiou, E. K., & Roscoe, R. D. (2026) · Technology Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-026-09999-y
Self-citation
Reconceptualizing Assessment in Higher Education
Saha, S., & Singh, M. K. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-9089-5.ch001
Integrating Automated Writing Evaluation Tools for Writing Instruction for Indian Engineering Students
Saraswat, N. (2026) · Springer Proceedings in Humanities and Social Sciences · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-0411-3_12
An NLP-assisted and explainable rule-based platform for formative feedback from academic similarity reports
Huamanta, E. R. C., Pillco, D. V. A., Seijas-Díaz, J. G., Ruales, E. A. B., Manrique, J. I. T., & Patiño, Í. W. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1928575
Metrics and Learning in an Empathic Organisation
Mastrogiacomi, F. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-35370-2_5
The Cost of Algorithmic Assessment: How AI Grading Undermines Academic Motivation and Amplifies AI Reliance Intentions
Namkoong, J., & Burnham, T. A. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16101718
Artificial intelligence-driven writing intervention for children with Chinese dysgraphia: integrating cognitive apprenticeship theory into multimodal feedback design
Wang, L., Deng, Y., Zhou, R., Yao, X., Li, X., & Dong, L. (2026) · Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties · doi:10.1080/19404158.2026.2742132

Authors: Wilson, J., & Roscoe, R. D.
Affiliations: University of Delaware (US)
Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author: Wilson, Joshua
ORCID: Wilson, Joshua
Roscoe, Rod D.
Venue: Journal of Educational Computing Research
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Published: 2019-03-26
Volume: 58
Issue: 1
Pages: 87-125
ISSN: 0735-6331 (ISSN-L)
1541-4140
DOI: 10.1177/0735633119830764
OpenAlex: W2923646821
Cited by: 176
References: 75
Citations by year: 2026: 34 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 2
FWCI: 37.10
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: closed
Licence: journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations: Journal of Educational Computing Research (publishedVersion)
Topics: Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
Keywords: automated writing evaluation, writing self-efficacy, writing quality, Google Docs, writing instruction, teacher perceptions, social validity, junior high school students, writing feedback

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

Automated Writing Evaluation and Feedback: Multiple Metrics of Efficacy

Abstract

Overview

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks