Bridging the language gap: How AWE software fosters inclusivity for ELs and Non-ELs alike

University of Delaware professor investigates how English learners interact with and benefit from automated essay evaluation technology

Aug 6, 2024

2 min

Joshua Wilson

When ChatGPT burst onto the scene in November 2022, many educators and parents worried that new writing tools powered by artificial intelligence (AI) would help their students bypass important learning opportunities. Instead, as University of Delaware associate professor Joshua Wilson has shown, AI-powered writing and evaluation tools have actually helped students develop their writing skills and have supported teachers in providing meaningful feedback.


Now, in a recent study published in Learning and Instruction, Wilson and his co-authors turn their attention to elementary English learners (EL), investigating how this growing population of students interacts with and benefits from automated writing evaluation (AWE) software. AWE is a class of educational technology tools that use natural language processing and AI to provide students with automated formative feedback that supports improvements in writing quality. 


They found that AWE technologies are equally beneficial for ELs as they are for non-ELs. Study participants accessed writing feedback to a similar extent, achieved equal gains in writing quality, focused on consistent dimensions of writing when revising and endorsed the AWE system to similar degrees, regardless of their language status.


“As AI-based feedback applications become increasingly prevalent, it’s critical that researchers examine the consequences of implementing those tools in authentic educational settings, with a particular focus on equity,” said Wilson. 


Wilson’s study focuses on MI Write, an AWE system designed to improve the teaching and learning of writing by providing students with automated feedback and writing scores.


To investigate interaction with the AWE software, Wilson and his co-authors looked at three dimensions of engagement: behavioral, or the actions students take in response to feedback; cognitive, or the thinking and revision strategies that students use in response to feedback; and affective, or how students feel about and perceive feedback.


Across all three dimensions, Wilson and his co-authors found similar levels of engagement across all students. They also found that the overall improvements in student writing over the course of the school year was not related to language status.


But, even in light of these positive findings, Wilson emphasizes that it’s important to view AWE as a teaching tool rather than as a replacement for classroom teaching.


For more on Wilson's research or to speak to him about AI in the classroom, click on his profile and reach out to him. 

Connect with:
Joshua Wilson

Joshua Wilson

Associate Professor, Education

Prof. Wilson's research focuses on ways that technology and artificial intelligence can improve the teaching and learning of writing.

Writing InstructionWriting AssessmentAutomated ScoringAutomated FeedbackArtificial Intelligence in Education

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Delaware

1 min

The hidden consequences of school suspensions: Insights from 'Suspended Education'

School suspensions have long been a traditional disciplinary strategy used by educational institutions to address behavioral issues. Often perceived as a straightforward solution to handle disruptive conduct, suspensions remove the student from the school environment, theoretically allowing learning to proceed unhindered. University of Delaware sociology professor Aaron Kupchik explores school suspensions in his new book ‘Suspended Education: School Punishment and the Legacy of Racial Injustice.' He looks at how this practice is intrinsically tied to racial inequality and can have negative long-term impacts on students. He notes that beneath this seemingly effective measure, a multitude of unintended consequences lurk, some of which profoundly affect both the individual student and the broader community. And often, there is more harm than good done by this measure, particularly for students of color.  Kupchik has appeared in a number of outlets including Time magazine and Delaware Public Media. He can be reached by clicking on his profile.

2 min

New survey shows lack of public trust in Musk, DOGE

New data from the Center for Political Communication (CPC) at the University of Delaware shows many Americans have little trust in either Elon Musk or the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In a nationally-representative sample of 1,600 adult Americans surveyed by YouGov between February 27 and March 5, 2025, CPC researchers asked how much trust respondents had in various people and institutions, including Elon Musk, the Department of Government Efficiency, and President Trump. Among the key findings: • 25% of Americans report having “a lot” or “a great deal” of trust in Elon Musk 26% report having “a lot” or “a great deal” of trust in Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). • 33% report having “a lot” or “a great deal” of trust in President Donald Trump. • About half of Republicans report “a lot” or “a great deal” of trust in either (compared to 70% of Republicans who report “a lot” or “a great deal” of trust in President Trump). • Among independent voters, only 11% report “a lot” or “a great deal” of trust in Musk and 13% in DOGE. “As constituents in Republican districts learn about and voice concerns about DOGE’s cuts to Veteran’s Affairs, The National Institutes of Health, National Parks, and the Federal Aviation Administration, it will be interesting to see how public trust in Musk and DOGE may be affected,” said Dr. Dannagal Young, Director of the Center for Political Communication and one of the authors of the survey. “Understanding public sentiment about these unique government entities is essential to help ensure that elected officials are responsive to voter concerns." Visit the CPC's website for full results of the survey. To connect with Young for an interview, visit her profile and click the contact button.

1 min

March Madness: Experts comment on picking underdogs, prop bets and economic benefits

Why do people pick underdogs when filling out their brackets for the NCAA men's and women's basketball tournaments? How do people consume March Madness? How does the tournament benefit host cities and teams economically? University of Delaware experts have the answers. The following UD faculty members can provide their expertise for journalists working on stories about the tournaments. • Jackie Silverman, assistant professor of marketing: Why people might have chosen underdogs still hanging around in their brackets, • John Allgood, instructor of sport management: How people consume March Madness (streaming vs. cable TV) and how major collegiate sports events can help brand individual schools. Contact UD media relations to reach him. • Tim DeSchriver, associate professor of sport management: Sports gambling (including prop bets) and advertising targets. • Matthew Robinson, professor of sport management: Economic benefits of the host city. • Matt McGranaghan, assistant professor of marketing: Consumer attention span during commercial breaks. To reach these experts directly and set up interviews, visit the expert profiles below and click on the contact button.

View all posts