Despite the current widespread use of Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) feedback, many issues regarding its efficacy still remain unresolved. Recent studies mainly focus on correctly detected errors with a lack of attention on the comprehensiveness of error detection, or error coverage. Error coverage is interesting because little is known about the capacity of AWE systems to fully detect common second language (L2) errors. It is also important to investigate the potential effect of such capacity on student uptake and retention, which are important constructs in fostering L2 writing development. To this end, the present study compared teacher feedback and AWE error coverage in L2 writing classes. The findings suggest that both the AWE system and the teacher demonstrated low error coverage across grammar, usage, and mechanics error categories. However, they indicated differences in the types of errors they identified most frequently. The AWE system flagged more mechanical errors, whereas the teacher provided twice as many corrections for grammar errors, including wrong/missing words, prepositions, and incorrect word forms. While the AWE system performed moderately in flagging articles and comma errors, it struggled with more nuanced grammatical errors, suggesting it may not be a reliable standalone tool for addressing specific needs of L2 learners’ writing challenges. Interestingly, coverage was positively associated with successful uptake, with students utilizing a wider variety of revision acts (i.e., change, add, delete, remove) on AWE errors identified compared to errors not identified. However, error coverage did not correlate with short- or long-term retention of accuracy, implying that retention may result from the interplay of error coverage with other factors. Findings provide implications for writing teachers regarding the employment of AWE systems and for AWE developers regarding the future optimizations of the AWE systems.

The present study aims to investigate the extent to which L2 learners’ individual differences (field dependency and writing motivation) predict their retention of a teacher’s written corrective feedback (CF) in the short and in the long run. Using Ellis’s (2010) theoretical framework, the study examines the issue from cognitive and affective perspectives. Data was collected from 127 intermediate-level university students through written essays, a field-dependence/independence (FDI) questionnaire, and a writing motivation questionnaire, which were analyzed through t test, ANOVA, and multiple regression. The results reveal that there is a strong relationship between field independence (FI) style and the students’ successful short-term and long-term retention of corrections in the subsequent writings. Writing motivation, however, influences the short-term retention of CF only.