Rustam Shadiev and Yingying Feng

Interactive learning environments

2023   

https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2153145

Abstract：

Previous review studies do not have a broad and comprehensive perspective on the usage of ACF tools in language learning. To address this gap, we reviewed 82 articles on the use of ACF tools published in the last five years. Results indicate that 43 ACF tools were used in studies to assist writing, grammar, spelling, and collocation and word use. Pigai, Criterion and Grammarly were the most frequently used tools. Ten main functions of tools were identified and explained. Most studies explored the effectiveness of ACF tools and investigated students’ perceptions of tools’ usefulness. A process-writing pedagogical approach was adopted by many scholars. Students completed learning tasks and then revised their work based on feedback. ACF tools were frequently applied to English as a second language learning context and undergraduate students were often involved in studies. In terms of findings, scholars reported about tools’ accuracy rates and their effects on language learning. There were mixed results related to accuracy rates of ACF tools. Most results demonstrated positive effects of ACF tools on language learning. In addition, scholars highlighted some disadvantages of ACF tools. Several implications were made and suggestions were provided for educators and researchers in the field.

Keywords📑：Automated corrective feedback; learning and teaching; languages; review