The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 4 are not checked yet.
AcaWriter: A Learning Analytics Tool for Formative Feedback on Academic Writing
Open accessAbstract
Written communication is an important skill across academia, the workplace, and civic participation. Effective writing incorporates instantiations of particular text structures - rhetorical moves - that communicate intent to the reader. These rhetorical moves are important across a range of academic styles of writing, including essays and research abstracts, as well as in forms of writing in which one reflects on learning gained through experience. However, learning how to effectively instantiate and use these rhetorical moves is a challenge. Moreover, educators often struggle to provide feedback supporting this learning, particularly at scale. Where effective support is provided, the techniques can be hard to share beyond single implementation sites. We address these challenges through the open-source AcaWriter tool, which provides feedback on rhetorical moves, with a design that allows feedback customization for specific contexts. We introduce three example implementations in which we have customized the tool and evaluated it with regard to user perceptions, and its impact on student writing. We discuss the tool's general theoretical background and provide a detailed technical account. We conclude with four recommendations that emphasize the potential of collaborative approaches in building, sharing and evaluating writing tools in research and practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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
“A further interesting area of work involves the use of feedback analytics to support student academic writing (Gibson et al., 2017; Knight et al., 2020).”
From A systematic review of the role of learning analytics in enhancing feedback practices in higher education (2022) · cites this paper as Knight et al., 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data
Thomas, D. R. (2006) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1098214005283748 · Cited by 10,858
Brown, A. L. (1992) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2 · Cited by 4,000
Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/bf02504682 · Cited by 2,634
Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. (1998) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079812331380364 · Cited by 2,608
Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/0742-051x(94)00012-u · Cited by 2,314
Penetrating the Fog: Analytics in Learning and Education.
Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011) · Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) · Cited by 1,752
Research Genres: Explorations and Applications
Swales, J. M. (2004) · Cited by 1,675
Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society
Boud, D. (2000) · Studies in Continuing Education · doi:10.1080/713695728 · Cited by 1,545
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). What is reflection in learning. In D. Boud (Ed.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 7-17). Kogan Page.
- Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1993). The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing. Routledge.
- Elsevier. (2015). New open access resource will support text mining and natural language processing. Elsevier Connect. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/new-open-accessresource-will-support-text-mining-and-natural-language-processing
- Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing process. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing (pp. 3-30). Erlbaum.
- LAK11. (2011). 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge 2011 | Connecting the technical, pedagogical, and social dimensions of learning analytics. LAK11. https://tekri.athabascau.ca/analytics/about
- Shibani, A., Knight, S., & Shum, S. B. (2019). Contextualizable Learning Analytics Design: A Generic Model and Writing Analytics Evaluations. Proceedings of the 9th International
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Explainable Artificial Intelligence in education
Khosravi, H., Shum, S. B., Chen, G., Conati, C., Tsai, Y.-S., Kay, J., Knight, S., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Sadiq, S., & Gašević, D. (2022) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100074 · Cited by 863
Self-citationAssessment in the age of artificial intelligence
Swiecki, Z., Khosravi, H., Chen, G., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Lodge, J. M., Milligan, S., Selwyn, N., & Gašević, D. (2022) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100075 · Cited by 409
Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., van Ginkel, S., Macfadyen, L. P., & Biemans, H. J. A. (2022) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100489 · Cited by 246
A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants
Lee, M., Gero, K. I., Chung, J. J. Y., Shum, S. B., Raheja, V., Shen, H., Venugopalan, S., Wambsganss, T., Zhou, D., Alghamdi, E. A., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642697 · Cited by 136
Self-citationThe Effectiveness of Automated Writing Evaluation on Writing Quality: A Meta-Analysis
Zhai, N., & Ma, X. (2022) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331221127300 · Cited by 186
Metadata
- Authors
- Knight, S., Shibani, A., Abel, S., Gibson, A., & Ryan, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Technology Sydney (AU)
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Knight, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Writing Research
- Published
- 2020-06
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- vol. 12 issue 1
- Pages
- 141-186
- ISSN
- 2030-1006 (ISSN-L)
- 2294-3307
- OpenAlex
- W3024117512
- Cited by
- 151
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 10
- FWCI
- 30.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Journal of Writing Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Keywords
- learning analytics, formative feedback, academic writing, rhetorical moves, writing instruction, student writing, user perception
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
