Teachers’ Perceptions of Automated Writing Feedback (AWF) Tools in English
Language Teaching (ELT) in English Department:
A Mixed-Methods Study at Hanoi University
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
Writing feedback has long been recognized as a crucial component of second
language writing instruction, which provides learners with effective guidance to improve
their writing skills. In recent years, the emergence of AWF tools has admittedly created a
myriad of new possibilities for delivering feedback in ELT. As a result, these tools have
gained significant traction, particularly regarding their potential to support both teachers and
learners in academic writing contexts.
To frame this review, the selection of literature is guided by specific criteria. Priority
is given to studies that investigate the impact of AWF tools in ELT across diverse educational
contexts, regardless of geography. Specifically, some chosen studies focus narrowly on a
single AWF tool, such as Write&Improve or Grammarly, and gather data through
questionnaires or interviews with students, teachers, or both. Other research adopts a broader
perspective, which examines AWF tools in general rather than concentrating on one particular
platform. Besides, several works are selected for their role as comprehensive reviews in
which the authors synthesize previous findings for the purpose of highlighting similarities
and differences across the literature in the field. All these sources were published within the
last decade and are freely accessible online. Collectively, this body of research points to a
general consensus that AWF tools are potentially effective in enhancing students’ writing
skills and indirectly useful for teachers, though certain limitations are also acknowledged in
terms of the nature of feedback.
To provide a structured synthesis, the following literature review is organized into
three interconnected areas: (1) the nature and significance of writing feedback, with a focus
on the distinction between higher-order and lower-order concerns; (2) AWF tools, with their
affordances and patterns of implementation; and (3) the benefits and drawbacks of these tools
for both students and teachers. The purpose of the review is not only to synthesize existing
scholarship on AWF tools in ELT, particularly in academic writing contexts, but also to
establish a clear understanding of current comments in the field. This, in turn, lays a
foundation for our conceptual framework of the present study and guides the design of data
collection instruments, including questionnaires and interview questions.
2.2. Writing Feedback
Feedback on writing can be understood as comments or suggestions that readers give
to writers to revise and improve the quality of their text (Keh, 1990). As Hyland & Hyland
(2006) noted, in the context of ELT classrooms, feedback may be provided by teachers, peers,
self or computer (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). Additionally, despite the diversity of feedback
sources, constructive responses remain central as they aim to enhance learners’ competence
and motivation in using the target language. This highlights the enduring role of feedback as
a key pedagogical resource in second language (L2) writing.
Research has shown that L2 writers often encounter difficulties in areas such as word
choice, grammatical accuracy, or structuring and expressing ideas (Lee, 2017, cited in
Nguyen, 2024). Feedback, therefore, functions not only as error correction but also as
scaffolding for learners’ development in accuracy, coherence, and cohesion. In this sense,
feedback shapes learners’ writing ability by guiding them through challenges that would
otherwise impede their progress.
However, the way feedback is applied depends heavily on the pedagogical orientation
of the writing class. In product-based approaches, feedback is typically oriented toward
accuracy with an emphasis on grammar and vocabulary (Silva, 1990; Tangpermpoon, 2008,
cited in Nevisi & Adibrad, 2024). While this approach ensures language correctness, critics
argue that it neglects the writing process but just focuses on the mastery of grammar points
and the final product. In contrast, process-based approaches view writing as a recursive
activity involving planning, drafting, revising, and editing. In this approach, feedback is
delivered at multiple stages, which encourages learners to refine their work for a satisfying
final version and to engage more deeply with ideas (Kroll, 1990; Al-Jarrah et al.,
2019;Nunan, 1999, cited in Nevisi & Adibrad, 2024). Despite being more time-consuming,
this approach positions feedback as an ongoing dialogue between teacher and student rather
than a final judgement.
2.3. Higher-Order Concerns (HOCs) & Lower-Order Concerns (LOCs)
In writing pedagogy, not all elements of a text carry equal weight during revision and
feedback. To address this, scholars have distinguished between Higher-Order Concerns
(HOCs) and Lower-Order Concerns (LOCs) to represent different levels of priority in the
revision process. According to Reigstad and McAndrew (1984), LOCs are defined as
surface-level issues such as grammar, punctuation, spelling, and word choice. These elements
are fundamental for accuracy but do not necessarily determine the overall effectiveness of a
text. In contrast, HOCs include more hidden aspects such as thesis clarity, argument
development, organization, and rhetorical voice. These components together shape the
coherence and communicative impact of writing.
While conventional wisdom suggests that writers should address HOCs before
attending to LOCs, the process is actually often recursive. Writers naturally move back and
forth between these two levels to refine both form and content during writing (Purdue OWL,
2013). This highlights that HOCs and LOCs are interdependent rather than strictly
hierarchical. However, empirical research reveals a persistent imbalance in learners’
attention. Specifically, students tend to prioritize LOCs over HOCs, which means they
concentrate mainly on grammatical correctness and neglect higher-order elements (Min,
2006, cited in Altstaedter, 2009). This overemphasis may reflect students’ beliefs that
accuracy is the primary measure of good writing or it may stem from teacher practices that
error correction takes precedence over content-oriented feedback. For that reason, teachers
play a crucial role in directing learners’ focus toward HOCs during the early stages of writing
and ensure that attention to LOCs comes later to polish the final draft.
2.4. Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) / Automated Writing Feedback (AWF)
In recent years, computer-assisted feedback on writing has gained significant attention
under the umbrella of Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE). AWE, also known as
Automated Writing Feedback (AWF), broadly denotes computerized feedback systems that
employ natural language processing to provide both immediate scoring and instant feedback
to learners regardless of writing genre (Shen et al., 2023; Stevenson & Phakiti, 2019). For
consistency, the present study adopts the term “AWF” throughout. Beyond natural language
processing, these systems often integrate artificial intelligence and latent semantic analysis to
enhance scoring, coupled with feedback generation (Stevenson, 2016). As noted by Le et al.
(2025), the evaluation process typically involves comparing students’ versions with a handful
of databases of genre-specific writing samples. Through this mechanism, AWF tools can
assign scores or classify learners’ writing proficiency according to the Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR) competency framework. As a result, an AWF system is
designed not only to generate essay ratings but also to provide immediate feedback for the
purpose of improving writing quality when revising (Wilson et al., 2021).
However, the nature of the feedback generated by AWF tools remains a matter of
debate. While feedback features vary across different platforms, they primarily deliver
performance and task-related feedback rather than process-oriented or self-regulatory
feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, as cited in Wilson et al., 2021). This means that in most
cases, AWF tends to focus on correctness and task completion but neglect to offer insights
into how learners might regulate their own learning or make sustained progress over time.
Moreover, a definition from Ariyanto et al. (2021) can be used to clarify these points, which
characterizes AWF as a program providing both suggestive and corrective feedback. In other
words, the feedback from AWF tools often takes the form of error correction (e.g., grammar
and spelling correction) and suggestions for improving writing quality when revising (Wilson
et al., 2021). Such features align closely with what learners and teachers often identify as
LOCs.
2.5. AWF Implementation and Usage
Teachers implement AWF tools in their interaction and instruction in different ways.
The most common way found in existing research was augmenting AWF by combining it
with teacher feedback. A great deal of previous research revealed that teachers may use those
tools for initial drafts and revising phases, then provide targeted feedback on subsequent
revisions (Chen & Cheng, 2008; Choi, 2010). Similarly, some teachers reported
supplementing AWF’s initial assessment by elaborating on selected feedback points and
disregarding irrelevant information (Jeon & Lee, 2023, cited in Yao et al., 2025). Conversely,
in the findings of Chen and Cheng (2008) and Stevenson (2016), students could repeatedly
submit their work to AWF tools until achieving a threshold score set by the teacher, after
which the work was submitted for teacher feedback. Specifically, as shown in Chen and
Cheng’s (2008) study, in one classroom, the tool was integrated alongside both teacher and
peer feedback during the later stages of writing, whereas in another, it was paired exclusively
with teacher feedback. In the third classroom, the tool functioned in both formative and
summative capacities, being employed throughout the entire writing process, with its
automated scores contributing 40% to the students’ final grades.
According to Koltovskaia (2023), teachers predominantly consulted automated
feedback tools, such as Grammarly, before providing their own feedback, although some also
employed them concurrently during the feedback process. In another study, Wilson et al.
(2021) reported that teachers primarily relied on automated writing evaluation tools during
writing instruction, which averaged 35 minutes per day. However, Stevenson (2016) noted
that teachers rarely used such tools as the sole means of assessing students’ writing because
they only model a small part of the writing construct. Although teachers relied substantially
on tools such as Kimi, the fact that approximately one-fourth of the feedback was based on
their own discretion (Yao et al., 2025).
In addition to how AWF has been implemented, researchers have paid attention to its
actual usage in writing classroom contexts. Overall, teachers tend to view error feedback
provided by such tools more favorably than other aspects of feedback or scoring. According
to Ayan and Erdemir (2023), Yao et al. (2025) and Zeng (2025), and most teachers employ
automated writing corrective feedback tools as a complement to provide more feedback on
students’ writing assignments, particularly with respect to surface-level linguistic errors,
which are considered as LOCs. The majority is concentrated on sentence structure, word
choice (e.g., collocations and phrasing), spelling, punctuation, word form, overall
grammatical accuracy, and documentation or attribution (Koltovskaia, 2023). Choi (2010)
reported that teachers can review those tools and then make their own modifications or
additions to this feedback.
2.6. Benefits of Using AWF Tools in Writing
In general, the literature identifies five major advantages of adopting AWF in teaching
writing and giving feedback, which benefit both teachers and students across diverse
educational contexts.
For teachers, one of the typical benefits is that utilizing these tools in providing
written feedback can increase the productivity of class time (Muftah et al., 2023).
Specifically, AWF can reduce the teachers' workload or ease their burden during class time
(Benali, 2021). The second benefit that teachers can gain from employing AWF is reducing
teacher workload during class and after class time as “a second eye” or a teaching assistant
(Ayan & Erdemir, 2023), which makes the teaching process easier and more enjoyable
(Grimes & Warschauer, 2010). In other words, applying AWF in giving feedback can save
much time for teachers by identifying LOC errors, which helps teachers focus more on other,
bigger issues in students’ writing (Koltovskaia, 2023). To be more specific, AWF can provide
more valuable feedback on the aspects of mechanics and grammatical errors (Wang & Han,
2022). Additionally, the feedback from AWF also focuses on vocabulary, collocations,
content, and structure of the writing (Wang & Han, 2022), but these things are quite limited
and sometimes lack accuracy (Wilson et al., 2024). Another teacher’s benefit is that
implementing AWF allows grading to be more objective and reliable, compared to human
raters, especially in the standardized essay tests (Parra & Calero, 2019). It has “the ability to
significantly reduce logistics for marking a large number of written scripts” (Wilson et al.,
2024), which differs from the normal marking way that “diverge by some points needing a
third marker to have a final grade agreement” (Parra & Calero, 2019).
In terms of students, the outstanding benefit gained from applying AWF in class is
enhancing the quality of students’ writing (Benali, 2021). Because of its immediate and
“individualized” feedback ability with clarifications of grammar, spelling, sentence, and word
usage, AWF also contributes to fostering the students’ autonomy (Parra & Calero, 2019).
With these findings in students’ essays, it can help to improve the “metalinguistic skills”
gradually (Wilson et al., 2024). As a result, through its cycles of practice and feedback, AWF
can provide students with a source of efficacy information (Palermo & Wilson, 2020), which
in turn boosts students' motivation in the writing process. To put it in another way, providing
rapid feedback, along with specific comments and scores from automated systems, can
enhance learners' incentives and create an engaged environment that encourages them to
practice writing more (Benali, 2021). All of these advantages from AWF refer to the
effectiveness, fruitfulness, and applicability (Ayan & Erdemir, 2023).
2.7. Drawbacks of Using AWF Tools in Writing
While AWF tools have been promoted as innovative aids in language learning and
teaching, some scholars expressed doubts and remained cautious about these tools in
comparative studies between automated feedback and other forms of feedback, particularly
human instructors (Zeng, 2025). The central critique from most studies revolves around the
insufficiency of detailed feedback and constructive guidance for further writing
improvement. Lee (2020) reported that users were dissatisfied with the limited specificity of
feedback and the inability to support wider aspects of writing, such as coherence and
development of content. In other words, these tools may overlook higher-order concerns like
argumentation and prioritize accuracy over essential complex issues expected by users.
Empirical evidence supports this concern. Grimes and Warschauer (2010, as cited in Wilson
et al., 2021) conducted a study on MyAccess - an AWE system in three U.S. school districts
and revealed that teachers doubted the accuracy of automated scoring and questioned its
pedagogical value in shifting teachers’ focus to higher-level concerns of writing.
What is more, Benali (2021) further discussed and outlined the persistent challenges
and shortcomings of AWF tools based on synthesized evidence from earlier studies.
Specifically, Stevenson and Phakiti (2014) observed that automated systems lack “human
inferencing skills and background knowledge” (p. 52), which is indispensable for interpreting
context and writer intention. In line with this, Benali (2021) also cited the view from Ranalli
(2018), who argued about the lack of focus on feedback. Feedback generated by AWE is
generic rather than tailored to specific types of errors for learning purposes. Besides, Benali’s
(2021) review consolidates these schools of thought by pointing to issues of explicitness, the
absence of dialogic interaction in feedback, and the insufficient training of teachers, coupled
with students, on how to implement AWF systems. All things considered, these identified
drawbacks of AWF raise concerns about the extent to which AWF tools genuinely cultivate
writing competence and whether their use risks narrowing learners’ understanding of writing
to mechanical, surface-level skills.
2.8. Conclusion
In conclusion, some studies have been conducted to examine perceptions of users,
particularly teachers and students, toward AWF tools coupled with their potential role in
enhancing writing skills. Drawing from empirical evidence, scholars have provided valuable
insights regarding the strengths and limitations of these tools in ELT. However, research
remains relatively limited in examining how university teachers perceive the implementation
of AWE tools in EFL tertiary education, specifically how they employ these tools in practice,
what benefits they gain and challenges they encounter. This gap is particularly evident in the
Vietnamese context where studies in foreign language universities are not abundant.
Although there have been some existing studies exploring teachers’ perceptions of AWF tools
in higher education, the findings have largely focused on two aspects: skepticism about the
accuracy of automated feedback and recognition of its usefulness in reducing workload. Sara
and Tayeb (2024) highlight that while prior studies shed light on teachers’ perceptions of
AWE tools to see the positive and negative attitudes, there is insufficient understanding of
their actual practices and perceptions. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate
teachers’ perspectives grounded in their experiences to figure out other aspects.
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
Research Question 2: What are teachers’ perceptions of the drawbacks of using
AWF tools in teaching writing?
Perceived Drawbacks of Using AWF tools
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5= Strongly Agree)
Statements 1 2 3 4 5 Mean St. Deviation
1. Due to their short-term memory, AWF 0 3 5 5 2 3.4 .98
tools sometimes provide slow, inconsistent,
or inaccurate feedback when handling
multiple students’ work.
2. AWF tools cannot adequately address 0 4 3 5 3 3.47 1.13
higher-order concerns in writing, such as
argument development or critical thinking.
3. Using AWF tools takes significant time to 0 5 5 5 0 3 .85
create and adjust detailed and specific
prompts.
4. Switching between teacher’s own feedback 0 6 8 1 0 2.67 .62
and AWF disrupts teaching workflow.
5. AWF tools may lead to a loss of teacher 1 10 3 1 0 2.27 .70
control over the feedback process.
6. Technical or access issues (e.g., internet, 0 1 5 9 0 3.53 .64
licensing, device compatibility, lack of
training, limited support) limit effective use of
AWF tools.
7. Using AWF tools takes additional time to 0 0 5 10 0 3.67 .49
review and filter feedback before sharing with
students.
Table 4.2. Perceived drawbacks of AWF tools in teaching writing
As shown in Table 4.2, the mean scores of these items ranged from 2.27 to 3.67,
which indicates that teachers generally expressed low to moderate agreement with the listed
concerns. While teachers acknowledged certain limitations of AWF tools, these concerns
were not strongly held across the group. The standard deviations, from .49 to 1.13, reflected
some degree of variation in teachers’ experiences and perceptions with some drawbacks
being more noticeable to certain teachers than to others.
Time and Technical issues
Statements 1 2 3 4 5 Mean St. Deviation
3. Using AWF tools takes significant time to 0 5 5 5 0 3.0 .85
create and adjust detailed and specific
prompts.
6. Technical or access issues (e.g., internet, 0 1 5 9 0 3.53 .64
licensing, device compatibility, lack of
training, limited support) limit effective use of
AWF tools.
7. Using AWF tools takes additional time to 0 0 5 10 0 3.67 .49
review and filter feedback before sharing with
students.
The first group of perceived drawbacks relates to the time required to use AWF tools
effectively and the technical challenges associated with their implementation. The statement
“Using AWF tools takes additional time to review and filter feedback before sharing with
students” received the highest mean score among all drawback items (M = 3.67). This
indicates that although AWF tools can generate feedback automatically, the majority of
teachers still feel the need to verify the relevance, accuracy, and appropriateness of this
feedback before providing it to students. However, the statement “Using AWF tools takes
significant time to create and adjust detailed and specific prompts” recorded a mean score of
3.00, which reflects a neutral level of agreement among respondents. While some teachers
may find prompt creation time-consuming, others may not view this as a major issue.
Technical difficulties also emerged as a concern among respondents. The statement
“Technical or access issues (e.g., internet, licensing, device compatibility, lack of training,
limited support) limit effective use of AWF tools” resulted in a mean score of 3.53, the
second-highest in the drawbacks category. With 10 teachers expressing agreement on this
issue, the results show that inconsistent access to resources and insufficient institutional or
technical support may hinder the effective integration of AWF tools into teaching practices.
Besides, the qualitative data provided no further information about these issues.
Classroom management
Statements 1 2 3 4 5 Mean St. Deviation
4. Switching between teacher’s own feedback 0 6 8 1 0 2.67 .62
and AWF disrupts teaching workflow.
5. AWF tools may lead to a loss of teacher 1 10 3 1 0 2.27 .70
control over the feedback process.
The second theme of perceived drawbacks concern classroom management,
specifically how AWF tools influence teachers’ workflow and their sense of control during
the feedback process. The statement “Switching between teacher’s own feedback and AWF
disrupts teaching workflow” (M = 2.67) had a mean score below the neutral point. This
indicates that while only 6 teachers did not perceive the integration of AWF tools as causing
disruption to their feedback routines in classroom, 8 teachers remained neutral about this
issue. Furthermore, the statement “AWF tools may lead to a loss of teacher control over the
feedback process” received the lowest mean score among all drawback items (M = 2.27),
reflecting general disagreement with this concern. Teachers still maintained confidence in
their authority and instructional role, even when using AWF tools as part of their assessment
process. However, none of the five interviewed teachers mentioned this theme.
Memory ability
Statements 1 2 3 4 5 Mean St. Deviation
1. Due to their short-term memory, AWF 0 3 5 5 2 3.4 .98
tools sometimes provide slow, inconsistent,
or inaccurate feedback when handling
multiple students’ work.
The third theme is about memory ability, which concerns the capacity of AWF tools to
retain contextual information and provide consistent feedback across multiple student
writing. The statement “Due to their short-term memory, AWF tools sometimes provide slow,
inconsistent, or inaccurate feedback when handling multiple students’ work” recorded a
mean score of 3.40 with a standard deviation of .98. The relatively high standard deviation,
nearly 1.0, indicates noticeable variation in teachers’ experiences. Specifically, while two
teachers strongly agreed and five agreed that memory constraints sometimes resulted in
inconsistency, three teachers disagreed on this issue and five remained neutral. A portion of
teachers encountered challenges to obtain consistent feedback generated by AWF tools,
particularly when they apply the tools across different student texts.
The concern regarding memory limitations was also reflected in the interview data.
Two teachers reported dissatisfaction with the tools’ ability to maintain consistency to
provide automated feedback. They noted that while AWF tools could initially follow given
instructions or prompts, the quality and consistency of feedback tended to decline over time
or when handling multiple student texts.
“The problem is short-term memory. For the first five or six days, they can surely
remember my instructions and I just ask them to do it the same as this one. But after
five or six turns, they completely forgot and did nonsense correction. And then I had
to paste the instruction again and correct it up to two or three times.” (Teacher 5)
“And because of their limited memory, they cannot handle a large number of student
writings. (Teacher 6)
Feedback on HOCs
Statements 1 2 3 4 5 Mean St. Deviation
2. AWF tools cannot adequately address 0 4 3 5 3 3.47 1.13
higher-order concerns in writing, such as
argument development or critical thinking.
The fourth theme identified in the data is feedback on HOCs, which refers to AWF
tools’ ability to support aspects such as reasoning and overall coherence in students’ writing.
The item “AWF tools cannot adequately address higher-order concerns in writing, such as
argument development or critical thinking” received the highest standard deviation among all
statements (M = 3.47, SD = 1.13). The standard deviation above 1.0 indicates notable
distribution in teachers’ opinions with potential outliers in the numerical data. Importantly,
three teachers strongly agreed and five agreed with the statement, while four teachers
disagreed and three remained neutral. Rather than showing strong consensus, this result
reflects a mixed response among teachers. While half of the respondents recognized clear
limitations in automated feedback at deeper levels, others appeared to have experienced
fewer issues with HOCs. As a result, although a tendency toward agreement is evident, the
responses reflect mixed experiences with how AWF tools handle feedback beyond
surface-level errors.
The qualitative data further supported this finding. Among the interviewees, two
teachers emphasized that feedback on HOCs still requires teacher involvement. They noted
that while AWF tools may assist with lower-order concerns such as grammar and vocabulary,
they fall short in offering feedback on deeper areas such as organization, coherence and task
fulfillment. Consequently, these teachers reported that they typically provided feedback on
HOCs themselves rather than relying on AWF tools.
“I think that teachers are needed for feedback, specifically on organization and
content because these areas require deeper understanding, require teachers'
judgment, and require deeper knowledge of the task requirements. So those things are
some of the things that AI tools cannot fully understand, in my opinion.” (Teacher 3)
“And for the coherence and the cohesion, mostly I will give my own comments, not
from ChatGPT or other tools.” (Teacher 6)
Quality of feedback
Although the questionnaire did not directly include items evaluating the quality of
feedback generated by AWF tools, this issue emerged clearly from the interview data.
Through interviews with five teachers, three of them expressed particular concern regarding
the clarity and accuracy of feedback. These teachers reported instances where AWF tools
provided feedback that was wrong, unclear, general or not aligned with specific
characteristics of students’ writing. Consequently, they often found themselves re-evaluating
the feedback and raised doubts about the reliability of AWF tools in teaching writing.
“I think that sometimes AI tools can give us wrong or unclear suggestions. For
example, they can give wrong or unclear suggestions, especially in the case of using
complex sentences within a paragraph.” (Teacher 3)
“AWF tools give inaccurate and inconsistent feedback.” (Teacher 4)
“For the very first time I use it, like if I just give them the whole essay and ask them to
give me feedback in terms of vocabulary and then cohesion or something like that, it
just gives me something very general. And even after that, I do give them specific
criteria like examples. But the general result is not really effective.” (Teacher 5)
Other drawbacks
In the open-ended question regarding additional drawbacks not captured in the
questionnaire items, one teacher commented that AWF tools can sometimes produce
feedback that is “biased and not persuasive or reasonable”.
Students’ response
Another emerging theme concerns teachers’ perceptions of students’ responses to
AWF tools. However, our present research focuses primarily on teachers’ use and does not
include any information about the use of these tools from students. Through the interviews,
two teachers noted that frequent use of AWF tools may lead to students’ overreliance on
automated suggestions and a loss of critical thinking skills.
“So I think that one drawback is when the students become too dependent on
ChatGPT or on Grammarly's suggestions and corrections. Sometimes when they are
over-reliant on those suggestions, this can block their writing ability in order to
develop independent writing and independent editing. Sometimes it also hinders the
students' critical thinking skills as well. And I think that you all know the importance
of critical thinking. Critical thinking and creativity in writing, how important they are.
So using over-reliance on grammar instructions and corrections may of course bring
some potential drawbacks, especially in reducing the students' motivations and
reducing the students' creative thinking and critical thinking as well.” (Teacher 3)
Teachers who have not used AWF Tools in teaching writing
The findings above reflect the responses of the 15 teachers who reported using AWF
tools in their teaching writing. However, five teachers indicated “No” to the initial question
regarding AWF tools use, and therefore moved to a different set of questions focused on their
reasons for non-adoption.
Statement /5
Lack of awareness of available tools 3
Lack of training on how to use them 4
Concerns about accuracy/ reliability 4
Lack of access (e.g., cost, licensing, internet issues) 2
Lack of personalized feedback 2
Other 0
Table 4.3. Reasons for not using AWF tools
As shown in Table 4.3, the primary reasons included a lack of training on how to use
AWF tools and concerns about the accuracy or reliability of the feedback generated by these
tools. The main barriers to the implementation of AWF tools are associated with knowledge,
skills, and confidence rather than resistance or negative attitudes toward the tools themselves.
This is further supported by the item “I am interested in trying AWF tools in the future,” to
which four teachers agreed and one strongly agreed, indicating generally positive openness
toward future adoption. Other reasons included limited awareness of the range of available
AWF tools, restricted access to such tools in teaching contexts, and a lack of personalization
in feedback for individual students.