Students reported AWA highlighting provoked reflection on their writing despite questioning its accuracy¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Students reported that AWA feedback helped them think differently about their writing, using the highlighting and lack of highlighting as prompts for reflection, even while doubting the accuracy of the classifications. → Knight 2016

Evidence¶

Knight 2016¶

Knight, S., Buckingham Shum, S., Ryan, P., Sándor, Á., & Wang, X. (2016). Designing Academic Writing Analytics for Civil Law Student Self-Assessment. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 28(1), 1–28. doi:10.1007/s40593-016-0121-0

q2 · i? · design · r2

Thematic analysis of survey responses (12 of 40 participants responding), written reflections, and lecturer notes from oral reflection statements, coded in NVivo. Students noted e.g. that the tool "picked up problems with my essay that I had not noticed" and revealed habitual placement of emphatic language late rather than early in paragraphs.

"A number of students mentioned in their written comments or reflections that the AWA feedback had helped them to think differently about their writing by using the highlighting – and lack of highlighting – as a prompt for reflection."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students identified lack of sensitivity to linguistic nuance as a limitation of AWA feedback — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Students showed clear appetite for automated writing support and comfort with machine-generated feedback — related
• AWE feedback has limited depth and questionable accuracy for evaluating complex writing aspects — a broader claim this one bears on
• Peer feedback promoted critical reflection, collaboration and engagement, but students doubted its reliability because peers were statistics beginners — related