Extension usage examples:
Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
Article summary:
1. This article presents the design and evaluation of a web-based intelligent writing assistant that helps students recognize their revisions of argumentative essays.
2. The system was implemented with differences in the unit span (sentence versus sub-sentence) of revision analysis and the level of feedback provided (none, binary, or detailed revision purpose categorization).
3. Results show that an interface providing a detailed categorization of sentence-level revisions is the most helpful based on user survey data, as well as the most effective based on improvement in writing outcomes.
Article analysis:
The article is generally trustworthy and reliable. It provides a clear description of the research conducted, including details about the design decisions behind relevant components of the system, as well as an analysis of the efficacy of different versions through a Wizard of Oz study with university students. The authors also provide evidence to support their claims, such as citing previous research on peer feedback and its effects on student learning gains. Additionally, they provide a thorough discussion about how their system can best support students in terms of providing feedback on revisions.
The only potential bias in this article is that it does not explore counterarguments or present both sides equally when discussing how automated writing assistants can help improve student writing skills. However, this bias does not significantly affect the overall trustworthiness and reliability of the article since it does not detract from its main purpose: to discuss how ArgRewrite can help students recognize their revisions for argumentative essays.