The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Correcting tool or learning tool?: Student perceptions of an online essay writing support tool at Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University
Open accessAbstract
This paper reports on the initial data from an extension project that intends to further develop Marking Mate, a self-directed assignment writing support programme developed at Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU) by Eoin Jordan and Andy Snyder. The study explores how students currently use the programme and how they would like to see it being improved. In this paper, we explore the apparent tension between students wanting to use Marking Mate as a correction tool and its potential as a learning tool, with reference to the specific Chinese context of the university. An additional tension between a highly contextualised and locally developed programme (such as Marking Mate), and widely available online tools that allow for potentially similar outcomes (such as Grammarly), is also discussed. It is argued that the programme may be more effective if it is explicitly presented as a learning tool, rather than a correction tool.
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
“Students in a study by Reis and Huijser (2016) preferred Grammarly to the alternative feedback system Marking Mate.”
From Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly (2019) · cites this paper as Reis and Huijser, 2016
Citations
Cites
Developing sustainable feedback practices
Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075071003642449 · Cited by 869
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly
ONeill, R., & Russell, A. (2019) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.3795 · Cited by 180
Metadata
- Authors
- Reis, C., & Huijser, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Liverpool (GB)
- Venue
- ASCILITE Publications
- Publisher
- Open Access Publishing Association
- Published
- 2016-11-25
- Pages
- 529-533
- ISSN
- 2653-665X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4399134079
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 0.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- ASCILITE Publications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Keywords
- assignment writing, Grammarly, Chinese higher education, writing instruction
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
