The effectiveness of online feedback and automated writing feedback in improving writing: A systematic literature review
List of Authors
  • Nur Riza Alias2, Khursiah Mohammad Sauffi , Zuwati Hasim

Keyword
  • Online Feedback, Automated Writing Feedback, Writing, Technology

Abstract
  • Online feedback and Automated Writing Feedback (AWF) are increasingly popular tools for assessing and enhancing students’ writing skills. These methods utilise a range of multimedia online platforms and tools to deliver feedback which encompasses interactive forums, virtual collaboration spaces, and sophisticated automated writing feedback systems, in order to provide comprehensive and varied feedback to students. With students becoming more accustomed to technology and having easy access to the internet on their devices, they are now well-equipped to receive and benefit from online feedback and AWF. However, whether this feedback given through online platforms or tools is effective in addressing writing issues and improving students' writing is yet inconclusive. As the effectiveness lies in the manner the platforms and tools are being used, this review intends to address the effectiveness of online feedback and AWF tools on writing by looking at recent studies related to these fields to find out in what way it can support students’ writing skill, to what extent these online feedback and AWF tools are effective in improving writing and the key considerations when employing these modes for feedback provision. This paper employs the PRISMA approach to collect primary data using keywords such as "online feedback," “automated feedback” and "writing." An advanced search on SCOPUS yielded 15 articles from tertiary contexts and were analysed under two central themes: (1) The Effectiveness of Automated Writing Feedback/Evaluation (AWF/AWE) in Improving Writing (2) The Effectiveness of Online Feedback Platforms in Improving Writing. Result indicates there is a positive impact of online feedback and the use of AWF/AWE tools in improving students’ writing skills. However, specific considerations for its effective implementation are discussed in this review.

Reference
  • 1. Abidah, K. H., & Ratih, E. (2022). Direct vs indirect corrective feedback for writing improvement: students’ preferences. Wiralodra English Journal, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.31943/wej.v6i1.151 2. Chong, S. W. (2019). College students’ perception of e-feedback: a grounded theory perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(7), 1090–1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1572067 3. Dikli, S., & Bleyle, S. (2014). Automated Essay Scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback? Assessing Writing, 22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.006 4. Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.005 5. Espasa-Roca, A., & Guasch-Pascual, T. (2021). How to engage students to take advantage of online feedback. RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educacion a Distancia, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.24.2.29107 6. Ghandoura, W. A. (2012). A Qualitative Study of ESL College Students’ Attitudes about Computer-Assisted Writing Classes. English Language Teaching, 5(4), 57–64. 7. Grami, G. M. A. (2020). An evaluation of online and automated English writing assistants: Collocations and idioms checkers. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(4), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i04.11782 8. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399 9. Ismail, N., Maulan, S., & Hasan, N. H. (2008). The impact of teacher feedback on students’ writing performance. Academic Journal of Social Studies, 8(1). 10. Kim, Y., Choi, B., Kang, S., Kim, B., & Yun, H. (2020). Comparing the effects of direct and indirect synchronous written corrective feedback: Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 53(1), 176–199. 11. Koltovskaia, S. (2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450 12. Lee, I. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100734 13. Lee, I., Luo, N., & Mak, P. (2021). Teachers’ attempts at focused written corrective feedback in situ. Journal of Second Language Writing, 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100809 14. Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1–18. 15. Li, Z. (2021). Teachers in automated writing evaluation (AWE) system-supported ESL writing classes: Perception, implementation, and influence. System, 99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102505 16. Li, Z., Feng, H.-H., & Saricaoglu, A. (2017). The short-term and long-term effects of AWE feedback on ESL students’ development of grammatical accuracy. Calico Journal, 34(3), 355–375. 17. Li, Z., Link, S., Ma, H., Yang, H., & Hegelheimer, V. (2014). The role of automated writing evaluation holistic scores in the ESL classroom. SYSTEM, 44, 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.02.007 18. Link, S., Mehrzad, M., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 605–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323 19. Liu, M., Li, Y., Xu, W., & Liu, L. (2016). Automated essay feedback generation and its impact on revision. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(4), 502–513. 20. Luan, N. L., & Ishak, S. N. A. (2018). Instructor’s direct and indirect feedback: How do they impact learners’ written performance? In 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature (Vol. 24, Issue 3, pp. 95–110). https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2018-2403-08 21. Lv, X., Ren, W., & Xie, Y. (2021). The Effects of Online Feedback on ESL/EFL Writing: A Meta-Analysis. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30(6), 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40299-021-00594-6/TABLES/2 22. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group*, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. 23. Moses, R. N., & Mohamad, M. (2019). Challenges faced by students and teachers on writing skills in ESL Contexts: A literature review. Creative Education, 10(13), 3385–3391. 24. Ranalli, J. (2018). Automated written corrective feedback: how well can students make use of it? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 653–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994 25. Razali, K. A., Rahman, Z. A., Ahmad, I. S., & Othman, J. (2021). Malaysian ESL Teachers’ Practice of Written Feedback on Students’Writing. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 29(3), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.47836/PJSSH.29.S3.03 26. Shang, H.-F. (2017). An exploration of asynchronous and synchronous feedback modes in EFL writing. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29, 496–513. 27. Sharma, D., Sood, A. K., Darius, P. S. H., Gundabattini, E., Darius Gnanaraj, S., & Joseph 28. Jeyapaul, A. (2022). A Study on the Online-Offline and Blended Learning Methods. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series B, 103(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40031-022-00766-y 29. Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: a case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 517–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.993400 30. Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer‐mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319. 31. Siekmann, L., Parr, J. M., & Busse, V. (2022). Structure and coherence as challenges in composition: A study of assessing less proficient EFL writers’ text quality. Assessing Writing, 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100672 32. Wali, F., & Huijser, H. (2018). Write to improve: exploring the impact of an automated feedback tool on Bahraini learners of English. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 15(1), 14–34. 33. Woodworth, J., & Barkaoui, K. (2020). Perspectives on Using Automated Writing Evaluation Systems to Provide Written Corrective Feedback in the ESL Classroom. TESL Canada Journal, 37(2), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v37i2.1340 34. Yusoff, Z. S., & Daud, N. M. (2013). Frequency and types of revision made in Wiki assisted writing classroom. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21(13), 153–160. 35. Zhang-Wu, Q. (2023). Exploring multilingual students’ feedback literacy in an asynchronous online writing course. Assessing Writing, 56, 100718. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100718