Automated Written Corrective Feedback in Research Paper Revision: The Good, The Bad, and The Missing.
Saved in:
| Title: | Automated Written Corrective Feedback in Research Paper Revision: The Good, The Bad, and The Missing. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Kim, Ha Ram1 (AUTHOR) haram0123@gmail.com |
| Source: | CALICO Journal. 2024, Vol. 41 Issue 3, p347-351. 5p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Revision (Writing process), *Second language acquisition, *Chinese-speaking students, Report writing, Evidence gaps |
| Abstract: | The article "Automated Written Corrective Feedback in Research Paper Revision: The Good, The Bad, and The Missing" by Qian Guo, Ruiling Feng, and Yuanfang Hua explores the use of automated writing evaluation (AWE) tools in research paper revision, particularly focusing on Grammarly. The authors conducted two studies to evaluate the effectiveness of Grammarly in providing feedback and improving student engagement in research paper revision. The book provides valuable insights for graduate students, developers, and educators interested in incorporating AWE tools into research writing revision, highlighting the importance of feedback quality, precision, and student engagement. The study also suggests further research on factors influencing engagement with AWE tools and the interaction between error types, feedback quality, and individual characteristics in AWE-assisted research writing revision. [Extracted from the article] |
| Copyright of CALICO Journal is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The article "Automated Written Corrective Feedback in Research Paper Revision: The Good, The Bad, and The Missing" by Qian Guo, Ruiling Feng, and Yuanfang Hua explores the use of automated writing evaluation (AWE) tools in research paper revision, particularly focusing on Grammarly. The authors conducted two studies to evaluate the effectiveness of Grammarly in providing feedback and improving student engagement in research paper revision. The book provides valuable insights for graduate students, developers, and educators interested in incorporating AWE tools into research writing revision, highlighting the importance of feedback quality, precision, and student engagement. The study also suggests further research on factors influencing engagement with AWE tools and the interaction between error types, feedback quality, and individual characteristics in AWE-assisted research writing revision. [Extracted from the article] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 07427778 |
| DOI: | 10.1558/cj.27457 |
