Academic writing, as a core skill in higher education, poses significant challenges in terms of language organization, logical reasoning, and creative thinking. Although educators have increasingly explored technology-assisted instruction as a solution, empirical findings on its effectiveness remain inconsistent. This meta-analysis therefore evaluates the overall effect of technology-assisted academic writing instruction and examines moderating factors by synthesizing 56 (quasi-)experimental studies from 6 databases, yielding 67 effect sizes. Findings revealed a significantly large and positive effect (d = 1.209) of technology-assisted academic writing instruction on higher education students’ writing performance, with peak effectiveness observed in English-as-a-foreign-language contexts, genre-based approaches, low-intensity interventions, and English-for-academic-purposes essay tasks. Assessment type, technology type, technology media, and interaction pattern did not significantly moderate the overall outcomes. These results clarify previously mixed evidence by showing that contextual and pedagogical factors, rather than technology features alone, drive the effectiveness of technology-assisted academic writing instruction, highlighting its versatility and providing guidance for English-as-a-foreign-language course design, curriculum planning in resource-limited settings, and future research in technology-assisted writing pedagogy.
*AdhamiN.TaghizadehM. (2022). Integrating inquiry-based learning and computer supported collaborative learning into flipped classroom: Effects on academic writing performance and perceptions of students of railway engineering. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(3), 521–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2046107
2.
*AghajaniM.AdlooM. (2018). The effect of online cooperative learning on students’ writing skills and attitudes through telegram application. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11330a
3.
AldosemaniT.AssalahiH.LhothaliA.AlbsisiM. (2023). Automated writing evaluation in EFL contexts: A review of effectiveness, impact, and pedagogical implications. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.329962
4.
*AljafenB.S. (2018). Traditional vs. wiki: Saudi students’ performance in and perceptions of collaborative writing in a wiki [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Tennessee.
5.
*AlmalkiS.M. (2019). A mixed-methods study of exploring and explaining the impact of the use of educational blogging on Saudi EFL students’ writing development [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Exeter.
6.
*AlmelhiA.M. (2014). Effects of teaching argumentative reading and writing by integration in an e-learning environment on literacy development in EFL college students. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(5), 85–102.
7.
*AlsehibanyR.A.AbdelhalimS.M. (2023). Overcoming academic vocabulary errors through online corpus consultation: The case of Saudi English majors. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 38(5–6), 1033–1059. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2249503
8.
AlshaarA.A.AbuSeileekA.F. (2013a). Using concordancing and word processing to improve EFL graduate students’ written English. JALT CALL Journal, 9(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v9n1.148
9.
*AlshaarA.A.AbuSeileekA.F. (2013b). Using concordancing and word processing to improve EFL graduate students’ written English. JALT CALL Journal, 9(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v9n1.148
10.
*AlsubaieJ.AshuraidahA. (2017). Exploring writing individually and collaboratively using Google Docs in EFL contexts. English Language Teaching, 10(10), 10–30. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n10p10
11.
*AltunkayaH.AyrancıB. (2020). The use of Edmodo in academic writing education. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712659
12.
Al-WasyB.Q. (2020). The effectiveness of integrating technology in EFL/ESL writing: A meta-analysis. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 17(4), 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-03-2020-0033
13.
*Arroyo GonzálezR.Fernández-LanchoE.Maldonado JuradoJ.A. (2021). Learning effect in a multilingual web-based argumentative writing instruction model, called ECM, on metacognition, rhetorical moves, and self-efficacy for scientific purposes. Mathematics, 9(17), Article 2119. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9172119
14.
*AsoodarM.AtaiM.R.VaeziS. (2016). Blog-integrated writing with blog-buddies: EAP learners’ writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(2), 225–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115615588
15.
AyresP.PaasF. (2012). Cognitive load theory: New directions and challenges. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 827–832. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2882
*BaruaN.M. (2022). Blogging as a tool to enable students to write more effectively. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 25(3), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.5782/2223-2621.2022.25.3.60
18.
*BirhanA.T. (2021). Effects of teaching lexical bundles on EFL students’ abstract genre academic writing skills improvement: Corpus-based research design. International Journal of Language Education, 5(1), 585–597. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v5i1.14917
19.
*BirhanA.T.TekaM.AsradeN. (2021). Effects of using corpus-based instructional mediation on EFL students’ academic writing skills improvement. Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition, 7(2), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.31261/TAPSLA.9993
20.
BorensteinM.HedgesL.V. (2019). Effect sizes for meta-analysis. In CooperH.HedgesL.V.ValentineJ.C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (3rd ed., pp. 233–265). Russell Sage Foundation.
CarrW.KemmisS. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Routledge.
26.
CepedaN.J.PashlerH.VulE.WixtedJ.T.RohrerD. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
27.
*ChengG. (2019). Exploring the effects of automated tracking of student responses to teacher feedback in draft revision: Evidence from an undergraduate EFL writing course. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(2), 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1655769
28.
CheungA.C.SlavinR.E. (2013). Effects of educational technology applications on reading outcomes for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(3), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.50
29.
ChoK.SchunnC.D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004
30.
*CiftciH.KocogluZ. (2012). Effects of peer e-feedback on Turkish EFL students’ writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.46.1.c
31.
CooperH.HedgesL.V.ValentineJ.C. (Eds.). (2019). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (3rd ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
32.
CummingA.LaiC.ChoH. (2016). Students’ writing from sources for academic purposes: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.06.002
33.
CuocciS.Fattahi MarnaniP.KhanI.RobertsS. (2023). A meta-synthesis of technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes research: A replication of Chen’s study. Languages, 8(2), 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8020114
34.
DengL.ChengY.GaoX. (2024). Engagement patterns in research article introductions: A cross-disciplinary study. System, 120, Article 103204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103204
35.
*DoT.H. (2022). Flipping the classroom: The effects of flipped learning on an EFL academic writing course in a Vietnamese university [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Technology Sydney.
36.
DuvalS.J.TweedieR.L. (2000). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905
37.
*EbadiS.AlizadehA. (2021). The effects of online learner-driven feedback on IELTS writing skills via Google Docs. Teaching English with Technology, 21(3), 42–66.
38.
*EbadiS.RahimiM. (2017). Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using Google Docs on EFL learners’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(8), 787–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056
39.
*EbadiS.RahimiM. (2018). An exploration into the impact of WebQuest-based classroom on EFL learners’ critical thinking and academic writing skills: A mixed-methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(5–6), 617–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1449757
40.
EdmondsW.A.KennedyT.D. (2017). An applied guide to research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Sage Publications.
41.
EscorciaD.CampoK.NavarroG.RosC. (2025). Assessing writing practices in higher education: Characterizing self-reported practices and identifying their determinants. Assessing Writing, 66, Article 100976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2025.100976
42.
*FageehA.I. (2011). EFL learners’ use of blogging for developing writing skills and enhancing attitudes towards English learning: An exploratory study. Journal of Language and Literature, 2(1), 31–48.
*FerrimanN. (2013). The impact of blended e-learning on undergraduate academic essay writing in English (L2). Computers & Education, 60(1), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.008
45.
Gánem-GutiérrezG.A.GilmoreA. (2018). Tracking the real-time evolution of a writing event: Second language writers at different proficiency levels. Language Learning, 68(2), 469–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12280
46.
GrahamS.PerinD. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
47.
*HanS. (2022). The contribution of blog-based writing instruction to enhancing writing performance and writing motivation of Chinese EFL learners. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1069585. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1069585
48.
*HanY.ZhaoS.NgL.L. (2021). How technology tools impact writing performance, lexical complexity, and perceived self-regulated learning strategies in EFL academic writing: A comparative study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 752793. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.752793
49.
*HassanzadehM.SaffariE.RezaeiS. (2021). The impact of computer-aided concept mapping on EFL learners’ lexical diversity: A process writing experiment. ReCALL, 33(3), 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834402100001X
50.
HattieJ. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
51.
HigginsJ.P.T.ThompsonS.G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
52.
HillocksG. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. National Council of Teachers of English.
53.
HinkelE. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54.
*HoangD.T.N.HoangT. (2022). Enhancing EFL students’ academic writing skills in online learning via Google Docs-based collaboration: a mixed-methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(7), 1504–1526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2083176
55.
*HosseinpourN.BiriaR.RezvaniE. (2019). Promoting academic writing proficiency of Iranian EFL learners through blended learning. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(4), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2083176
56.
*HuangS.RenandyaW.A. (2018). Exploring the integration of automated feedback among lower-proficiency EFL learners. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2018.1471083
57.
HuangX.XuW.LiF.YuZ. (2024). A meta-analysis of effects of automated writing evaluation on anxiety, motivation, and second language writing skills. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 33(5), 957–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00865-y
58.
HuismanB.SaabN.van den BroekP.van DrielJ. (2018). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896
59.
*HungH.C.YoungS.S.C. (2015). The effectiveness of adopting E-Readers to facilitate EFL students’ process-based academic writing. Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 250–263.
60.
HylandK. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Longman.
61.
HylandK.(2004a). Disciplinary interactions: Meta-discourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
62.
HylandK. (2004b). Genre and second language writing. University of Michigan Press.
63.
HylandK.JiangF. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001
64.
Ioratim-UbaG. (2020). The impact of an instruction to improve L2 learners’ academic conference abstract writing in multidisciplinary programmes. Language Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 143–169. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2020-2016
65.
JiangF. (2015). Nominal stance construction in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.07.002
66.
JohnsonM.D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSLW.2017.06.001
67.
*KeeL.L.RazaliA.B.SamadA.A.NoordinN. (2020). Effects of digital writing software as a tool for process approach to writing on teacher trainees’ academic writing performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 17(4), 1158–1546. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.4.12.1346
68.
KepesS.BanksG.C.McDanielM.WhetzelD.L. (2012). Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15(4), 624–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452760
69.
KimJ.LeeS.S.DetrickR.WangJ.L.LiN. (2025). Students’ generative AI interaction patterns and its impact on academic writing. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-025-09444-6
70.
KimV. (2018). Technology-enhanced feedback on student writing in the English-medium instruction classroom. English Teaching, 73(4), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.73.4.201812.29
71.
*KimY.BelcherD.PeytonC. (2023). Comparing monomodal traditional writing and digital multimodal composing in EAP classrooms: Linguistic performance and writing development, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 64, Article 101247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101247
72.
KincheloeJ.L. (2005). Critical constructivism. Peter Lang.
73.
KojimaM.KanetaT. (2022). L2 writing and its internal correlates: A meta-analysis. In JeonE.H.In’namiY. (Eds.), Bilingual processing and acquisition (pp. 109–158). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
74.
KwonK.LiuY.H.JohnsonL.P. (2014). Group regulation and social-emotional interactions observed in computer supported collaborative learning: Comparison between good vs. poor collaborators. Computers & Edcuation, 78, 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.004
75.
*Larsen-WalkerM. (2017). Can data-driven learning address L2 writers’ habitual errors with English linking adverbials?System, 69, 26–37. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.08.005
76.
LeeH.LeeJ.H. (2022). Interpreting the effectiveness of academic English writing programmes in higher education: A meta-analysis. Oxford Review of Education, 49(3), 281–300. http://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2022.2072284
77.
LeeS.KuoL.J.XuZ.HuX. (2020). The effects of technology-integrated classroom instruction on K-12 English language learners’ literacy development: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(4), 412–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1774612
78.
LiF.SunY. (2024). Effects of different forms of explicit instruction on L2 development: A meta-analysis. Foreign Language Annals, 57(1), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12726
79.
*LiJ.MakL. (2022). The effects of using an online collaboration tool on college students’ learning of academic writing skills. System, 105, Article 102712. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102712
80.
LiY.FlowerdewJ. (2020). Teaching English for research publication purposes (ERPP): A review of language teachers’ pedagogical initiatives. English for Specific Purposes, 59, 29–41. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.03.002
81.
LimbuL.MarkauskaiteL. (2015). How do learners experience joint writing: University students’ conceptions of online collaborative writing tasks and environments. Computers & Education, 82, 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.024
82.
*LinV.LiuG.Z.ChenN.S. (2020). The effects of an augmented-reality ubiquitous writing application: A comparative pilot project for enhancing EFL writing instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(5–6), 989–1030. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1770291
LittleC.W.ClarkJ.C.TaniN.E.ConnorC.M. (2018). Improving writing skills through technology-based instruction: A meta-analysis. Review of Education, 6(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3114
85.
LiuE.LiuR.Y. (2025). Imputing covariance for meta-analysis in the presence of interaction. Applied Sciences, 15(1), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15010141
86.
*LunaM.VillalónR.MateosM.MartínE. (2020). Improving university argumentative writing through an online training. Journal of Writing Research, 12(1), 233–262. http://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.08
87.
LvX.RenW.XieY. (2021). The effects of online feedback on ESL/EFL writing: A meta-analysis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30(6), 643–653. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00594-6
88.
*MachiliI.PapadopoulouI.KantaridouZ. (2020). Effect of strategy instruction on EFL students’ video-mediated integrated writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 48, Article 100708. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100708
89.
McCallumL.RaufM. (2020). Learning what works in improving writing: A meta-analysis of technology—oriented studies across Saudi universities. In McCallumL.CoombeC. (Eds.), The assessment of L2 written English across the MENA region (pp. 393–427). Springer International Publishing.
90.
MishraP.KoehlerM.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
91.
MorrisS.B.DeShonR.P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 105–125. http://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.7.1.105
92.
NgoT.T.N.ChenH.H.J.LaiK.K.W. (2022). The effectiveness of automated writing evaluation in EFL/ESL writing: A three-level meta-analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(2), 727–744. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2096642
93.
*NguyenN.Q.LeeK.W.PhuongD.N.NaiduS. (2019). An investigation into using flipped classroom model in an academic writing class in Vietnam. International Journal of Computer-assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 32–57. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.2019010103
94.
*NoordinN.KhojastehL. (2021). The effects of electronic feedback on medical university students’ writing performance. International Journal of Higher Education, 10(4), 124–134. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n4p124
95.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136
96.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In DoughtyC.J.LongM.H. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 717–761). Wiley-Blackwell.
97.
*NourinezhadS.HadipourfardE.BavaliM. (2021). The effect of audio-visual feedback on writing components and writing performance of medical university students in two different modes of instruction, flipped and traditional. Cogent Education, 8(1), Article 1978621. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1978621
98.
*OlasinaG. (2017). An evaluation of educational values of YouTube videos for academic writing. The African Journal of Information Systems, 9(4), 232–261.
99.
OrwinR.G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8(2), 157–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164923
100.
PageM.J.McKenzieJ.E.BossuytP.M.BoutronI.HoffmannT.C.MulrowC.D.MoherD. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(89), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
*PentangT.MaglenteJ.SesconM.E.A.MuraoF.F.BacolodM.S.JuanchoC.J.CapulsoL.B.BaluyotM.B.B.LopresJ.R.HazirH.BesnikH. (2023). Improving writing constructs and performance through vlog-assisted language learning (VALL). World Journal of English Language, 3(13), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n3p129
103.
*PhamD.H. (2019). Nominalization versus clause usage in CALL technology-mediated acquisition of EFL learners’ writing skills. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 9(2), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJVPLE.2019070105
104.
PierceG.L.ClearyP.F. (2024). The persistent educational digital divide and its impact on societal inequality. PLoS One, 19(4), Article e0286795. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286795
105.
*PourdanaN. (2022). Impacts of computer-assisted diagnostic assessment on sustainability of L2 learners’ collaborative writing improvement and their engagement modes. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00139-4
106.
*ProskeA.NarcissS.McNamaraD.S. (2012). Computer-based scaffolding to facilitate students’ development of expertise in academic writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 136–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01450.x
107.
RenW.LiS.LüX. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of second language pragmatics instruction. Applied Linguistics, 44(6), 1010–1029. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac055
RubiaeeA.M.DarusS.Abu BakarN. (2019). The effect of writing knowledge on EFL students’ ability in composing argumentative essays. Arab World English Journal, 10(4), 263–287. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no4.20
112.
*SaricaogluA. (2019). The impact of automated feedback on L2 learners’ written causal explanations. ReCALL, 31(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401800006X
113.
SchunkD.H. (2019). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson.
114.
SeyyedrezaeiM.S.AmiryousefiM.Gimeno-SanzA.TavakoliM. (2022). A meta-analysis of the relative effectiveness of technology-enhanced language learning on ESL/EFL writing performance: Retrospect and prospect. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(7), 1771–1805. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2118782
115.
Shamsi LameshkaniF.SoleimaniH.KhoshsimaH.JafarigoharM. (2022a). The effect of constructive alignment on academic writing using a virtual flipped classroom: Student learning and higher thinking. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2161053
116.
*Shamsi LameshkaniF.SoleimaniH.KhoshsimaH.JafarigoharM. (2022b). The effect of constructive alignment on academic writing using a virtual flipped classroom: Student learning and higher thinking. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2161053
117.
*SoleimaniH.JalilifarA.RoohiA.RahmanianM. (2019). Augmented reality and virtual reality scaffoldings in improving the abstract genre structure in a collaborative learning environment: A CALL study. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 11(23), 328–356.
118.
SticklerU. (2022). Technology and language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
119.
StorchN.TapperJ. (2009). The impact of an EAP course on postgraduate writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(3), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.03.001
120.
StroblC.AilhaudE.BenetosK.DevittA.KruseO.ProskeA.RappC. (2019). Digital support for academic writing: A review of technologies and pedagogies. Computers & Education, 131, 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.12.005
121.
*SunX.HuG. (2023). Direct and indirect data-driven learning: An experimental study of hedging in an EFL writing class. Language Teaching Research, 27(3), 660–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820954459
TajH.I.SulanB.N.SipraA.M.AhmadW. (2016). Impact of Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) on EFL: A meta-analysis. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(2), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.2p.76
124.
*TaskiranA.GokselN. (2022). Automated feedback and teacher feedback: Writing achievement in learning English as a foreign language at a distance. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 120–139. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1096260
125.
*TayS.Y.PhangB.L. (2022). Mind mapping software to aid academic writing: Pre-service English language teachers using i-Think maps. Issues in Educational Research, 32(1), 394–412.
126.
TengM.F. (2020). The role of metacognitive knowledge and regulation in mediating university EFL learners’ writing performance. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(5), 436–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1615493
127.
TerrinN.SchmidC.H.LauJ.OlkinI. (2003). Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 22(13), 2113–2126. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1461
128.
TikhonovaE.MezentsevaD.KasatkinP. (2024). Text redundancy in academic writing: A systematic scoping review. Journal of Language and Education, 10(3), 128–160. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2024.23747
129.
*TsaiY. (2014). Applying the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to explore the effects of a Course Management System (CMS)-Assisted EFL writing instruction. CALICO Journal, 32(1), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1558/calico.v32i1.25961
130.
TsengY.C.LinY.H. (2024). Enhancing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ writing with ChatGPT: A university-level course design. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 22(2), 78–97. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.21.5.3329
131.
Van’t WoutF.M.JarroldC. (2022). How does language support the acquisition of novel cognitive tasks? Investigating the role of task complexity and task instructions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(3), 416–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001131
132.
VaughanC. (1991). Holistic assessment: What goes on in the rater’s mind. In Hamp-LyonsL. (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 111–125). Ablex.
133.
ViechtbauerW. (2007). Accounting for heterogeneity via random-effects models and moderator analyses in meta-analysis. Journal of Psychology, 215(2), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.215.2.104
134.
ViechtbauerW.CheungM.W. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11
135.
VuoganA.LiS.F. (2022). Examining the effectiveness of peer feedback in second language writing: A meta-analysis. TESOL Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3178
136.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
137.
WichadeeS. (2013). Peer feedback on Facebook: The use of social networking websites to develop writing ability of undergraduate students. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(4), 260–270.
138.
WiseheartM.Küpper-TetzelC.E.WestonT.KimA.S.N.KaplerI.V.Foot-SeymourV. (2019). Enhancing the quality of student learning using distributed practice. In DunloskyJ.RawsonK.A. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cognition and education (pp. 550–583). Cambridge University Press.
139.
WuX.Y. (2024). Artificial intelligence in L2 learning: A meta-analysis of contextual, instructional, and social-emotional moderators. System, 126, 103498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103498
140.
XieJ. (2016). Direct or indirect? Critical or uncritical? Evaluation in Chinese English-major MA thesis literature reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.001
141.
*XingM.WangJ.SpencerK. (2008). Raising students’ awareness of cross-cultural contrastive rhetoric in English writing via an e-learning course. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 71–93.
XuZ.BanerjeeM.RamirezG.ZhuG.WijekumarK. (Kay). (2018). The effectiveness of educational technology applications on adult English language learners’ writing quality: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(1–2), 132–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1501069
144.
YangJ. (2013). MALL: Review of the recent applications of emerging mobile technologies. English Language Teaching, 6(7), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n7p19
145.
*YangY.F. (2015). Transforming and constructing academic knowledge through online peer feedback in summary writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(4), 324–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1016440
146.
*YucedalH.M. (2023). Integrating mobile assisted language learning (MALL) into EFL classes at a tertiary level. Revista Amazonia Investiga, 12(62), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.62.02.7
147.
*ZainiA.MazdayasnaG. (2015). The impact of computer-based instruction on the development of EFL learners’ writing skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 516–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12100
148.
ZhangR.ZouD. (2023). A review of research on technology-enhanced peer feedback for second language writing based on the activity theory framework. Education and Information Technologies, 28(6), 6727–6753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11469-8
149.
ZieglerN. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311500025X
150.
*ZouD.XieH.WangF.L. (2023). Effects of technology enhanced peer, teacher and self-feedback on students’ collaborative writing, critical thinking tendency and engagement in learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35(1), 166–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09337-y
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
