Abstract

AWCF can facilitate academic writing development, especially for novice writers of English as a foreign language (EFL). Existing AWCF studies mainly focus on teacher and learner perceptions; fewer have investigated the error-correction effect of AWCF and factors related to the effect. Especially lacking is research on how successfully students can use AWCF to correct errors in source-based academic writing. Meanwhile, Grammarly, an automated writing evaluation (AWE) tool, is under-represented in AWCF studies despite its extensive use in EFL classrooms and its significant advantages. Correspondingly, we evaluated how effectively EFL students could use Grammarly-provided feedback for error correction in research writing and what factors were related to user responses (i.e., revision operations) and response accuracy. The results show that the error scores decreased significantly after revision and the participants correctly addressed 85% of the Grammarly-flagged usages. The error-correction success was impressive, considering how the technical nature of research writing might affect feedback accuracy and user responses, both related to response accuracy. In fact, feedback accuracy contributed to response accuracy both directly and indirectly (via user responses). The findings have implications for source-based academic writing instruction and AWE tool development.

摘要

AWCF 可以促进学术写作的发展，尤其是对于英语作为外语 (EFL) 的新手作家。现有的 AWCF 研究主要关注教师和学习者的看法；很少有人研究 AWCF 的纠错效果以及与该效果相关的因素。尤其缺乏关于学生如何成功地使用 AWCF 来纠正基于源的学术写作中的错误的研究。与此同时，Grammarly是一种自动写作评估 (AWE) 工具，尽管它在 EFL 课堂​​中广泛使用并具有显着优势，但在 AWCF 研究中的代表性不足。相应地，我们评估了 EFL 学生使用Grammarly 的效率-为研究写作中的纠错提供反馈，以及哪些因素与用户响应（即修订操作）和响应准确性相关。结果表明，错误分数在修订后显着下降，参与者正确解决了 85% 的语法标记用法。考虑到研究写作的技术性质如何影响反馈准确性和用户响应，两者都与响应准确性相关，纠错的成功令人印象深刻。事实上，反馈准确性直接和间接（通过用户响应）都有助于响应的准确性。这些发现对基于源代码的学术写作指导和 AWE 工具开发具有重要意义。