Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study

Attali, 2004, Exploring the feedback and revision features of criterion, Paper Presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education in San Diego, CA Attali, 2006, Automated essay scoring with e-rater V.2, Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4, 1 Bai, 2017, In the face of fallible AWE feedback: How do students respond?, Educational Psychology, 37, 67, 10.1080/01443410.2016.1223275 Burstein, 1999, Automated essay scoring for nonnative English speakers Burstein, 1998, Automated scoring using a hybrid feature identification technique Chapelle, 2015, Validity arguments for diagnostic assessment using automated writing evaluation, Language Testing, 32, 385, 10.1177/0265532214565386 Chen, 2008, Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes, Language Learning & Technology, 12, 94 Corbin, 2008 Cotos, 2014 Creswell, 2014 Dikli, 2006, An overview of automated scoring of essays, The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5, 1 Dikli, 2014, Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback?, Assessing Writing, 22, 1, 10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.006 El-Ebyary, 2010, The impact of computer-based feedback on students’ written work, International Journal of English Studies, 10, 121, 10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119231 Elliot, 2002, IntellimetricTM: From here to validity, 71 Ellis, 2010, Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335, 10.1017/S0272263109990544 Enright, 2010, Complementing human judgment of essays written by English language learners with e-rater® scoring, Language Testing, 27, 317, 10.1177/0265532210363144 Fredricks, 2004, School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence, Review of Educational Research, 74, 59, 10.3102/00346543074001059 Gass, 2000 Grimes, 2010, Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation, Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8, 1 Han, 2015, Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in Chinese tertiary EFL classroom, Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31, 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002 Lai, 2010, Which do students prefer to evaluate their essays: Peers or computer program, British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 432, 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00959.x Li, 2015, Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction, Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1, 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004 Li, 2017, The short-term and long-term effects of AWE feedback on ESL students’ development of grammatical accuracy, CALICO Journal, 34, 355, 10.1558/cj.26382 Liao, 2015, Using automated writing evaluation to reduce grammar errors in writing, ELT Journal, 70, 308, 10.1093/elt/ccv058 O’Neill, 2019, Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 42 Powers, 2002, Comparing the validity of automated and human scoring of essays, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26, 407, 10.2190/CX92-7WKV-N7WC-JL0A Qassemzadeh, 2016, The impact of feedback provision by Grammarly software and teachers on learning passive structures by Iranian EFL learners, Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6, 1884, 10.17507/tpls.0609.23 Ranalli, 2018, Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it?, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31, 653, 10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994 Ranalli, J. (personal communication, March 25, 2019) claimed that Grammarly can be integrated into any word-processing environments and provide feedback in piecemeal and synchronously. Ranalli, J., & Yamashita, T. (2019, March). Synchronous automated written corrective feedback: Effects on L2 college students’ revision behavior and text quality. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) Annual Conference. Ranalli, 2017, Automated writing evaluation for formative assessment of second language writing: Investigating the accuracy and usefulness of feedback as part of argument-based validation, Educational Psychology, 37, 8, 10.1080/01443410.2015.1136407 Stevenson, 2014, The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing, Assessing Writing, 19, 51, 10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007 Stevenson, 2019, Automated feedback and second language writing, 125 Swain, 1995, Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning, Applied Linguistics, 16, 371, 10.1093/applin/16.3.371 Wang, 2012, Exploring the impact of using automated writing evaluation in English as a foreign language university students’ writing, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26, 1 Warden, 2000, EFL business writing behaviors in differing feedback environments, Language Learning, 50, 573, 10.1111/0023-8333.00141 Warschauer, 2008, Automated writing assessment in the classroom, Pedagogies, 3, 22, 10.1080/15544800701771580 Warschauer, 2006, Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda, Language Teaching Research, 10, 157, 10.1191/1362168806lr190oa Yin, 2009 Zhang, 2017, Student Engagement with computer-generated feedback: A case study, ELT Journal, 71, 317 Zhang, 2018, Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing, Assessing Writing, 36, 90, 10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004 Zheng, 2018, Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students, Assessing Writing, 37, 13, 10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001