Abstract Despite the increased use of automated writing evaluation (AWE) systems and similar programs for assessment purposes in second language (L2) writing classrooms, research on student engagement with automated feedback is scarce. This naturalistic case study explored two ESL college students’ engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly when revising a final draft. Following previous research, student engagement was operationalized using three interconnected dimensions: behavioral, cognitive, and affective. Behavioral engagement was explored through the analysis of QuickTime-based screencasts of students’ Grammarly usage. Cognitive and affective engagement were measured through the analysis of students’ comments during stimulated recall of the aforementioned screencasts and semi-structured interview. Findings suggest that students had different levels of engagement with AWCF. One showed greater cognitive engagement through his questioning of AWCF. However, he did little to verify the accuracy of feedback which resulted in moderate changes to his draft. The other’s overreliance on AWCF indicated more limited cognitive engagement which led to feedback’s blind acceptance. Nevertheless, this also resulted in moderate changes to her draft.

中文翻译：

---

学生参与 Grammarly 提供的自动书面纠正反馈 (AWCF)：多案例研究

摘要 尽管在第二语言 (L2) 写作课堂中越来越多地使用自动写作评估 (AWE) 系统和类似程序进行评估，但关于学生参与自动反馈的研究很少。这个自然主义的案例研究探讨了两名 ESL 大学生在修改最终草案时参与由 Grammarly 提供的自动书面纠正反馈 (AWCF)。根据先前的研究，学生参与使用三个相互关联的维度进行操作：行为、认知和情感。通过分析基于 QuickTime 的学生语法使用截屏视频，探索了行为参与。认知和情感参与是通过分析学生在上述截屏视频和半结构化访谈的刺激回忆期间的评论来衡量的。结果表明，学生对 AWCF 的参与程度不同。一位通过对 AWCF 的质疑表现出更大的认知参与。然而，他几乎没有验证反馈的准确性，这导致对他的草案进行了适度的修改。另一个对 AWCF 的过度依赖表明认知参与更有限，从而导致反馈的盲目接受。尽管如此，这也导致她的草案发生了适度的变化。