multi case study comparison

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Research Guides

Multiple Case Studies

Nadia Alqahtani and Pengtong Qu

Description

The case study approach is popular across disciplines in education, anthropology, sociology, psychology, medicine, law, and political science (Creswell, 2013). It is both a research method and a strategy (Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2017). In this type of research design, a case can be an individual, an event, or an entity, as determined by the research questions. There are two variants of the case study: the single-case study and the multiple-case study. The former design can be used to study and understand an unusual case, a critical case, a longitudinal case, or a revelatory case. On the other hand, a multiple-case study includes two or more cases or replications across the cases to investigate the same phenomena (Lewis-Beck, Bryman & Liao, 2003; Yin, 2017). …a multiple-case study includes two or more cases or replications across the cases to investigate the same phenomena

The difference between the single- and multiple-case study is the research design; however, they are within the same methodological framework (Yin, 2017). Multiple cases are selected so that “individual case studies either (a) predict similar results (a literal replication) or (b) predict contrasting results but for anticipatable reasons (a theoretical replication)” (p. 55). When the purpose of the study is to compare and replicate the findings, the multiple-case study produces more compelling evidence so that the study is considered more robust than the single-case study (Yin, 2017).

To write a multiple-case study, a summary of individual cases should be reported, and researchers need to draw cross-case conclusions and form a cross-case report (Yin, 2017). With evidence from multiple cases, researchers may have generalizable findings and develop theories (Lewis-Beck, Bryman & Liao, 2003).

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Lewis-Beck, M., Bryman, A. E., & Liao, T. F. (2003). The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Key Research Books and Articles on Multiple Case Study Methodology

Yin discusses how to decide if a case study should be used in research. Novice researchers can learn about research design, data collection, and data analysis of different types of case studies, as well as writing a case study report.

Chapter 2 introduces four major types of research design in case studies: holistic single-case design, embedded single-case design, holistic multiple-case design, and embedded multiple-case design. Novice researchers will learn about the definitions and characteristics of different designs. This chapter also teaches researchers how to examine and discuss the reliability and validity of the designs.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

This book compares five different qualitative research designs: narrative research, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study. It compares the characteristics, data collection, data analysis and representation, validity, and writing-up procedures among five inquiry approaches using texts with tables. For each approach, the author introduced the definition, features, types, and procedures and contextualized these components in a study, which was conducted through the same method. Each chapter ends with a list of relevant readings of each inquiry approach.

This book invites readers to compare these five qualitative methods and see the value of each approach. Readers can consider which approach would serve for their research contexts and questions, as well as how to design their research and conduct the data analysis based on their choice of research method.

Günes, E., & Bahçivan, E. (2016). A multiple case study of preservice science teachers’ TPACK: Embedded in a comprehensive belief system. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11 (15), 8040-8054.

In this article, the researchers showed the importance of using technological opportunities in improving the education process and how they enhanced the students’ learning in science education. The study examined the connection between “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge” (TPACK) and belief system in a science teaching context. The researchers used the multiple-case study to explore the effect of TPACK on the preservice science teachers’ (PST) beliefs on their TPACK level. The participants were three teachers with the low, medium, and high level of TPACK confidence. Content analysis was utilized to analyze the data, which were collected by individual semi-structured interviews with the participants about their lesson plans. The study first discussed each case, then compared features and relations across cases. The researchers found that there was a positive relationship between PST’s TPACK confidence and TPACK level; when PST had higher TPACK confidence, the participant had a higher competent TPACK level and vice versa.

Recent Dissertations Using Multiple Case Study Methodology

Milholland, E. S. (2015). A multiple case study of instructors utilizing Classroom Response Systems (CRS) to achieve pedagogical goals . Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order Number 3706380)

The researcher of this study critiques the use of Classroom Responses Systems by five instructors who employed this program five years ago in their classrooms. The researcher conducted the multiple-case study methodology and categorized themes. He interviewed each instructor with questions about their initial pedagogical goals, the changes in pedagogy during teaching, and the teaching techniques individuals used while practicing the CRS. The researcher used the multiple-case study with five instructors. He found that all instructors changed their goals during employing CRS; they decided to reduce the time of lecturing and to spend more time engaging students in interactive activities. This study also demonstrated that CRS was useful for the instructors to achieve multiple learning goals; all the instructors provided examples of the positive aspect of implementing CRS in their classrooms.

Li, C. L. (2010). The emergence of fairy tale literacy: A multiple case study on promoting critical literacy of children through a juxtaposed reading of classic fairy tales and their contemporary disruptive variants . Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order Number 3572104)

To explore how children’s development of critical literacy can be impacted by their reactions to fairy tales, the author conducted a multiple-case study with 4 cases, in which each child was a unit of analysis. Two Chinese immigrant children (a boy and a girl) and two American children (a boy and a girl) at the second or third grade were recruited in the study. The data were collected through interviews, discussions on fairy tales, and drawing pictures. The analysis was conducted within both individual cases and cross cases. Across four cases, the researcher found that the young children’s’ knowledge of traditional fairy tales was built upon mass-media based adaptations. The children believed that the representations on mass-media were the original stories, even though fairy tales are included in the elementary school curriculum. The author also found that introducing classic versions of fairy tales increased children’s knowledge in the genre’s origin, which would benefit their understanding of the genre. She argued that introducing fairy tales can be the first step to promote children’s development of critical literacy.

Asher, K. C. (2014). Mediating occupational socialization and occupational individuation in teacher education: A multiple case study of five elementary pre-service student teachers . Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order Number 3671989)

This study portrayed five pre-service teachers’ teaching experience in their student teaching phase and explored how pre-service teachers mediate their occupational socialization with occupational individuation. The study used the multiple-case study design and recruited five pre-service teachers from a Midwestern university as five cases. Qualitative data were collected through interviews, classroom observations, and field notes. The author implemented the case study analysis and found five strategies that the participants used to mediate occupational socialization with occupational individuation. These strategies were: 1) hindering from practicing their beliefs, 2) mimicking the styles of supervising teachers, 3) teaching in the ways in alignment with school’s existing practice, 4) enacting their own ideas, and 5) integrating and balancing occupational socialization and occupational individuation. The study also provided recommendations and implications to policymakers and educators in teacher education so that pre-service teachers can be better supported.

Multiple Case Studies Copyright © 2019 by Nadia Alqahtani and Pengtong Qu is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Corpus ID: 19081372

Single case studies vs. multiple case studies: A comparative study

• Johanna Gustafsson
• Published 2017

Tables from this paper

318 Citations

Categorization of case in case study research method: new approach, rigour in the management case study method: a study on master's dissertations, what is a case study, grounded theory: a guide for exploratory studies in management research.

• Highly Influenced

Cross-Platform Mobile App Development in Industry: A Multiple Case-Study

Integrating strategic planning and performance management in universities: a multiple case-study analysis, advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language, a review of the participant observation method in journalism: designing and reporting.

• 12 Excerpts

Managing Platform Business Growth: A Case Study of TikTok

A multiple case design for the investigation of information management processes for work-integrated learning., 58 references, what is a case study and what is it good for.

• Highly Influential

A Case in Case Study Methodology

Qualitative case study guidelines, methodology or method a critical review of qualitative case study reports., persuasion with case studies, a typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure, what are case studies good for nesting comparative case study research into the lakatosian research program, case study research design and methods, better stories and better constructs: the case for rigor and comparative logic.

• 10 Excerpts

Case Study Research

Related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

IEEE Account

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 26 August 2024

L2 writer engagement with automated written corrective feedback provided by ChatGPT: A mixed-method multiple case study

• Da Yan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1265-9772 1 &
• Shuxian Zhang 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  1086 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Language and linguistics

Automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) has been widely applied in second language (L2) writing classrooms in the past few decades. Recently, the introduction of tools based on generative artificial intelligence (GAI) such as ChatGPT heralds groundbreaking changes in the conceptualization and practice of AWCF in L2 pedagogy. However, students’ engagement in such an interactive and intelligent learning environment remains unstudied. The present study aims to investigate L2 writers’ behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement with ChatGPT as an AWCF provider for writing products. This mixed-method multiple case study explored four L2 writers’ behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement with AWCF provided by ChatGPT. Bearing the conversational and generative mechanisms of ChatGPT in mind, data on students’ engagement were collected from various sources: prompt writing techniques, revision operations, utilization of metacognitive and cognitive strategies, and attitudinal responses to the feedback. The results indicated that: 1) behavioral engagement was related to their individual differences in language proficiencies and technological competencies; 2) the participants have failed to metacognitively regulate the learning processes in an effective manner; and 3) ChatGPT ushered in an affectively engaging, albeit competence-demanding and time-consuming, learning environment for L2 writers. The study delivers conceptual and pedagogical implications for educators and researchers poised to incorporate GAI-based technologies in language education.

Similar content being viewed by others

Timed second language writing performance: effects of perceived teacher vs perceived automated feedback

ChatGPT and the digitisation of writing

A large-scale comparison of human-written versus chatgpt-generated essays, introduction.

“Engagement defines all learning” (Hiver et al. 2021 , 2).

In second language (L2) writing, feedback, especially written feedback, is one of the most widely applied and researched topics (Hyland and Hyland 2019 ). In the past decades, the focus of relevant research has shifted from the effects of feedback on writing quality (e.g., Nelson and Schunn 2009 ; Dizon and Gayed 2021 ) towards students’ involvement in processing and utilizing feedback (Zhang 2017 ; Ranalli 2021 ). However, due to the multifaceted and dynamic nature of student engagement with written feedback (Han and Gao 2021 ), the body of existing literature suffers from the lack of multidimensional insights into all the aspects of engagement with feedback (Shi 2021 ).

Meanwhile, with the advancement of technologies, automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) has been widely implemented in L2 classrooms as a pedagogical innovation. Researchers have made continuous contributions to expand our knowledge in 1) the effects of AWCF on the quality of writing products (Barrot 2021 ); 2) the interplay of AWCF and classroom instruction (Tan et al. 2022 ); and 3) learners’ perceptions of the utilization of AWCF providers in L2 classrooms (ONeill and Russell 2019 ). Reversely, thorough investigations of students’ engagement with AWCF have been scant (Koltovskaia 2020 ). Furthermore, compared to the bravery to incorporate state-of-the-art technologies in L2 classrooms, there remains a lacuna of research on the students’ engagement with cutting-edge AWCF providers. Since its advent in late 2022, ChatGPT, a conversational generative artificial intelligence (GAI) chatbot powered by large language models (LLM), has evoked heated hype about its impact on language education (e.g., Jiao et al. 2023 ; Mizumoto and Eguchi 2023 ). Specifically, a few pioneering studies have unveiled its strength to outperform its precedents in correcting grammatical errors (Fang et al. 2023 ; Wu et al. 2023 ). Nevertheless, we confronted a dearth of empirical evidence of students’ engagement with AWCF generated by ChatGPT in authentic L2 pedagogical settings.

Against the above backdrops, the study has explored L2 writers’ engagement with AWCF provided by ChatGPT. Theoretically, the research has drawn upon existing studies to reconceptualize student engagement with feedback provided by GAI-based systems. Methodologically, the study adopted a mixed-method multiple case study approach to collect and triangulate data. The paper is significant as it brings new insights into the changes in learning patterns that resulted from students’ exposure to GAI-based feedback providers and the extent to which learners engage with the new environment.

Literature review

Awcf and the potential of chatgpt.

In recent years, the impact of AWCF, the written corrective feedback (WCF) provided by computerized automated writing evaluation (AWE) tools, on L2 writing pedagogy has grown continuously (Zheng et al. 2021 ). Compared to the traditional teacher-fronted WCF, AWCF has been praised by researchers and educators for its: 1) power to alleviate teachers’ and peers’ burden in L2 classrooms (Ranalli 2018 ); 2) empowering effects in augmenting students’ involvement in revision and proofreading (Li et al. 2015 ); and 3) promptness in providing effective feedback (Barrot 2021 ). However, researchers have conflicting perspectives regarding the efficacy of AWCF compared to WCF. On the one hand, technology-enhanced feedback providers or interventions serve as a significant assistant in facilitating teachers or peers in making an accurate evaluative judgment on writing artifacts, particularly in overcoming evaluation biases or inaccuracies (Wood 2022 ; Gong and Yan 2023 ; Yan 2024a ), for example, the choice between lenient or severe judgment (e.g., Jansen et al. 2021 ) or the tendency to use simple heuristics while forming feedback (e.g., Fleckenstein et al. 2018 ). On the other hand, AWCF has constantly been criticized as inferior to human-generated feedback with the relatively restricted abilities of AWE systems to form accurate and comprehensive evaluations of writing artifacts, particularly the more traditional corpus-based systems such as Pigai.com (Fu et al. 2022 ). Hence, there has been a long-standing pursuit to improve AWE systems in providing individualized and effective AWCF for language learners (Fleckenstein et al. 2023 ).

Recently, with the emergence of AI-based technologies such as Grammarly and QuillBot, researchers’ interest shifted gradually. According to existing empirical studies, AI-based AWCF providers outperform the corpus-based systems by a substantial margin in both the feedback uptake and revision quality of L2 writers (c.f., the successful revision rate of merely 60% in Bai and Hu 2017 ; and approximately 70% in Koltovskaia 2020 ). Based on such improvement in performance, the technological advancement would further spur the research and implementation of AWCF providers in L2 writing classrooms.

Since the appearance of ChatGPT, researchers have attempted to adopt it as an AWCF provider for L2 writing with promising results. As evidenced by the comparison between ChatGPT and Grammarly by Wu et al. ( 2023 ), the former offers a further improvement over existing AI-based solutions for correcting grammatical errors. Accordingly, researchers have optimistically prophesied the potential of ChatGPT as a significant assistant for language learners in the future (Jiao et al. 2023 ; Mizumoto and Eguchi, 2023 ). The potential of ChatGPT as a potential AWCF provider is based on: 1) the outstanding performance in providing grammatical and syntactical corrections in an accurate and instant fashion (Steiss et al. 2024 ); 2) the tremendous amount of pre-trained language data that ensures its excellent performance compared to its precedents (Wu et al. 2023 ); 3) the ability to iteratively respond to users’ inquiries for feedback due to the interactional and conversational mechanism of the human-computer interface (White et al. 2023 ; Yan 2024b ); and 4) the verified enhancement from conversational AI-based chatbots as learning assistants in previous studies (Wu and Yu 2023 ).

However, we cannot neglect that ChatGPT has its disadvantages; for example, it could create hallucination , the randomly generated and unverified information (Tonmoy et al. 2024 ). Additionally, since ChatGPT is a conversational chatbot, the quality of ChatGPT-generated feedback is dynamic and subject to the extent to which the learners agentically seek and process the feedback (Yan 2024b ). Moreover, from a student perspective, the effective and ethical use of ChatGPT called for a higher level of AI literacy and corresponding support and scaffolding from teachers or peers, both of which were inadequately possessed or provided at the current stage (Yan 2023 ). Taken together, the effective utilization of ChatGPT in educational settings needs meaningful and successful fulfillment of its potential while controlling the threats and menaces it might bring.

In the pre-ChatGPT era, Ranalli ( 2018 ) has called for an accurate and robust AWCF provider that could interactively answer individual learners’ specific needs and demands. Given the history of the AWCF application and the strength of ChatGPT, the GAI-based system is in the spotlight as a potential problem solver and game changer for the field.

In an era of change, the effects of ChatGPT or similar GAI-based tools on L2 writing still need to be studied. Among all the overheating hype and unfounded fears about adopting ChatGPT in education since its debut, we expect more empirical studies investigating the actual effects of the tool on language learners. As Zhang ( 2017 ) has suggested, students’ engagement with feedback providers is an indispensable prerequisite to benefiting from technology-mediated language learning facilities. Consequently, a study focusing on learners’ involvement in processing and utilizing the corrective feedback provided by ChatGPT would enrich our limited knowledge of AI-mediated language learning (e.g., Tseng and Warschauer 2023 ).

Student engagement with AWCF and relevant empirical research

In L2 research, engagement has been understood as one of the defining features of students’ active involvement in learning (Mercer 2019 ). For L2 writing, engagement is commonly conceptualized as a tripartite meta-construct composing three key components: behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement (Ellis 2010 ; Zhang and Hyland 2018 ; Fan and Xu 2020 ). Specifically, behavioral engagement refers to the learning behaviors (Zheng and Yu 2018 ) and strategical choices in translating the received feedback into a revision (Han and Hyland 2015 ); affective engagement represents students’ emotional and attitudinal responses to the feedback (Ellis 2010 ); and cognitive engagement denotes the extent to which the student cognitively perceives the feedback and the subsequent cognitive and metacognitive operations to process and utilize the feedback (Han and Hyland 2015 ).

In recent years, many studies have investigated the three dimensions of student engagement in pedagogical settings of L2 writing equipped with automated feedback providers. On the one hand, researchers have attributed students’ engagement with AWCF to various factors. In a single case study to examine engagement with Pigai.com in an EFL context, Zhang ( 2017 ) discovers that more teacher scaffolding and pedagogical assistance are needed to facilitate the cognitive engagement of L2 writers learning with AWE systems. In a subsequent multiple case study on engagement with teacher-scaffolded feedback provided by Pigai.com, Zhang and Hyland ( 2018 ) attribute the diversity in learners’ engagement to students’ language proficiency, learning styles, and utilization of learning strategies. As the interest of researchers shifts from traditional AWE systems to AI-based AWCF providers, new perspectives on student engagement emerge. Ranalli ( 2021 ) concludes by observing six Mandarin L1 learners who trust in AWCF quality and credibility and decisively determine engagement. Furthermore, a recent eye-tracking study reveals that feedback explicitness determines student engagement with AWCF provided by Write & Improve (Liu and Yu 2022 ). On the other hand, contradictory voices are often heard from research on the students’ engagement with AWCF. For example, the study by Rad et al. ( 2023 ) betokens the promoting effects of Wordtune, an AI-based writing assistant, on L2 students’ overall engagement. On the contrary, Koltovskaia ( 2020 ) manifests that students’ cognitive engagement with the feedback provided by Grammarly is insufficient, although positive affective engagement was reported after using the tool to support writing.

Despite the prolific insights into students’ engagement with AWCF in L2 writing classrooms, scholars have criticized existing research for neglecting key elements, e.g., overlooking students’ involvement in the revision process (Stevenson and Phakiti 2019 ), and the predominance of an outcome-based approach to studying the quality of writing products (Liu and Yu 2022 ). The present study not only embarks on a comprehensive investigation into students’ engagement but also strives to seek a new conceptual departure in L2 pedagogy in the age of AI. Considering the characteristics of ChatGPT as a potential AWCF provider, there exists a lacuna in our understanding of how and to what extent students engage with the new GAI-based feedback provider.

Conceptualizing engagement with GAI-generated feedback

The rationale to revisit the conceptualization of student engagement with corrective feedback in the context of GAI is posited on the paradox between the alleged positive effects of AWCF providers on writing pedagogy (Fang et al. 2023 ; Wu and Yu 2023 ) and the reported challenges encountered by students to effectively tap the strength of AI in seeking feedback (Yan 2024b ). To frame the decisive factors affecting engagement, Ellis’s ( 2010 ) componential framework for investigating corrective feedback is referred to. According to the framework, student engagement with corrective feedback is influenced by individual differences and contextual factors. Previous studies have generally attributed the individual differences of learners to language proficiency (Zhang and Hyland 2018 ; Ranalli 2021 ). However, for ChatGPT as an AWCF provider, technological competence should be included as a major aspect of individual competence since the interaction with ChatGPT, via iteratively prompt writing and amendments, calls for a higher level of digital literacy (Lee 2023 ; Naamati-Schneider and Alt 2024 ).

The tripartite dimensions within the meta-construct of engagement are developed on top of the body of literature. First, the concept of behavioral engagement is expanded. In the study of Zhang and Hyland ( 2018 ), behavioral engagement is deemed to be students’ behaviors to process feedback, i.e., operation and strategies of revision. However, for the present study, an additional aspect of students’ behaviors is considered, i.e., the actions of writing prompts to seek feedback from ChatGPT. Unlike conventional AWE systems and AWCF providers such as Grammarly, the quality, content, and quantity of feedback provided by ChatGPT rely on the user’s interaction with the GAI-based system through iterative and incremental prompt writing (Yan 2023 ). Second, in line with the work by Koltovskaia ( 2020 ), the present study conceptualizes cognitive engagement as students’ utilization of cognitive and metacognitive strategies in processing AWCF; and affective engagement as students’ emotional and attitudinal responses to the AWCF. The conceptual model of student engagement with ChatGPT-generated feedback is graphically shown in Fig. 1 .

Conceptual model of student engagement with ChatGPT-generated AWCF.

The current study

The study explores L2 writer engagement with AWCF generated by ChatGPT. The following logic guides the research: (1) compared to more traditional approaches to corrective feedback, we are facing a paucity of comprehensive understanding of student engagement with AWCF; (2) compared to AWE systems such as Pigai.com, we have barely any knowledge about how ChatGPT’s unique features, such as its outstanding text generation abilities, interactive and conversational interfaces, iterative feedback generation capabilities, would impact on L2 writer engagement with AWCF; and (3) given that effective use of ChatGPT calls for a higher level of domain knowledge and AI competence, we need to examine how do these individual characteristics influence L2 writer engagement with ChatGPT-generated AWCF. Therefore, the following research question would be answered:

How do L2 writer with varied language proficiency and technological competence behaviorally, cognitively, and affectively engage with AWCF provided by ChatGPT?

Participants

The study’s research site was an undergraduate EFL program at a Chinese university. Students enrolled in this program had to take three writing courses in which formative assessment and technology-enhanced feedback were practiced. Therefore, the students were relatively experienced in learning-oriented assessment practices.

The participants were recruited from a pool of students previously involved in a pilot project investigating the impact of ChatGPT on L2 learners (Yan 2023 ). A purposeful sampling method was applied to select four participants with distinct characteristics in language proficiency and technological competence (Palinkas et al. 2015 ). The sampling criteria included: 1) average performance in four precedent L2 writing assessments, which were adopted from the official writing prompts of Test for English Major band 4, a national level and widely applied test of English proficiency for English majors in China (Jin and Fan 2011 ); 2) average performances in the assessments of two precedent digital humanities courses; 3) interest in the project and self-rated trust in AWCF; and 4) recommendations from co-researchers (from the teaching faculty of the program) based on classroom observation and the analysis of learning artifacts. Originally, a group of 14 students voluntarily participated in the project. However, only 4 students were regarded as qualified participants for the present study since the others failed to provide complete learning data. See Table 1 for the background information of the 4 participants. To maintain the ethicality of the study, written informed consents were obtained from all participants, who were aware of the purpose, design, procedures, and anonymity policies of the study, prior to the data collection procedures.

In second language acquisition (Duff 2010 ) and educational feedback (e.g., Zhang and Hyland 2023 ), case study has been widely applied as an established means to collect rich data on students’ actual learning experiences. Adopting a mixed-method multiple case study approach (Yin 2013 ), a case in the study was defined as the extent to which an individual learner was behaviorally, cognitively, and affectively engaged with ChatGPT-generated feedback. For each specific case, the study followed a convergent design in which the quantitative and qualitative data were triangulated to manifest students’ engagement with the AWCF (Creswell and Plano Clark 2018 ). Furthermore, the study was a collective multiple-case study, as the cross-case comparison of the individual cases allowed the researcher to generalize the findings for a broader context (Stake 1995 ). Although the limited number of participants would possibly hinder the study’s potential implications for a general and broader context, small sample size and/or high drop-out rate are frequent phenomena among case studies on learning behaviors, for example, in Koltovskaia and Mahapatra ( 2022 ), only 2 student participants’ data were selected from a pool of 17; in Yan ( 2024b ), only 3 students were finalized as participants in the inquiry into L2 writer’s feedback-seeking behaviors. As argued by Adams ( 2019 ), the limited number of research subjects in case studies had its merits in unfolding learner experiences in using feedback other than the feedback design.

During the five-week project, 68 students (inclusive of all the participants of the study) joined an L2 writing practicum focusing on exploring the affordance of ChatGPT as a feedback provider. Each week, two sessions of teacher-fronted instruction and live demonstration were prescribed, in addition to four sessions of self-directed learning and practicing. Students must complete draft writing, seek feedback from ChatGPT, execute the revision based on the feedback, and submit it to the instructor each week. To facilitate the data collection, different data collection strategies were employed, i.e., students’ weekly reflective learning journals (Bowen 2009 ), the observation of students’ behaviors in the classroom (Jamshed 2014 ), and the interviews (Braun and Clarke 2012 ). The practicum structure and data collection procedures of the study are shown in Fig. 2 .

Procedures of the study.

First, after each week, the participants were required to complete a reflective learning journal. Specifically, they are asked to provide their weekly reflection on the learning progressions, experiences using ChatGPT for feedback, the episodes of interaction with ChatGPT for eliciting and refining corrective feedback, and the acceptance and rejection of the feedback in preparing the revisions. Participants were encouraged to complete the journal multimodally with multiple types of files, e.g., screenshots, audio recordings, and video clips as supplementary files. See Supplementary Appendix A for the template for the reflective journal. Moreover, a task worksheet was provided to the learners to write down the draft writing, formative revisions, and the final writing products for each writing task. See Supplementary Appendix B for a sample task worksheet.

Second, during each instructional and practice session, the instructors were requested to record the students’ learning behaviors and processes. The students attended all the sessions in language laboratories equipped with keylogging and screen recording facilities to facilitate the recording. All the loggings and recordings were gathered, processed, and taken down in notes by two co-researchers recruited from the teaching faculty. Furthermore, the note-takers coded the notes against a coding scheme for metacognitive and cognitive learning strategies for the study. See Supplementary Appendix C for the coding scheme adopted from the work of Sonnenberg and Bannert ( 2015 ). Inter-coder disagreements were solved by reaching a consensus between the two coders and the researcher through recording playbacks and collective discussion. According to the measurement of Cohen’s Kappa (κ = 0.72, 95% CI [0.65, 0.84]), good inter-rater reliability was attained.

Finally, an immediate post-session interview was performed for each participant after the final session of the week. Participants were required to follow the instructions of the interviewer to answer the questions from the pre-determined interview protocol with questions like “When the project ends, are you willing to continue using ChatGPT for feedback in L2 writing?”. Each interview session lasted for about 10–15 min. The moderator was required to write down all the major viewpoints and interview details in an interview note. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Throughout the data collection processes, the researchers have taken measures to ensure the trustworthiness, reliability, and validity of data. For example, the reliability and validity of the observational data were attained after reaching interobserver agreement during the initial two weeks (Watkins and Pacheco 2000 ); the trustworthiness of the qualitative data were checked with member checking with participants (Doyle 2007 ), and the investigator triangulation (Carter et al. 2014 ).

First, quantified document analysis was applied to analyze the learning journals and the worksheets. For each case, the individual learner’s learning details, i.e., time spent for feedback processing, number of written ChatGPT prompts, time spent for the interaction with ChatGPT, and retention of feedback in the revision, were quantified and analyzed through descriptive statistics. For the coding of prompt writing patterns, a coding scheme developed by the first author in a previous work was used (Yan 2024b ). The coding was performed by three coders recruited from the teaching faculty. According to the measurement of Fleiss’ Kappa (κ = 0.86, 95%CI [0.78, 0.91]), good inter-rater reliability was achieved.

Second, a lag sequential analysis (LSA) using GSEQ 5.1 software was performed to analyze students’ transition and interaction patterns using metacognitive and cognitive strategies extracted from the coded classroom observations. LSA is a statistical technique used to identify patterns and sequences of behaviors or events over time by examining the conditional probabilities of one event occurring after another within a specified time delay or lag period (Bakeman and Quera 2011 ). Correspondingly, GSEQ calculated adjusted residuals from a transitional probability matrix based on the coded behavior sequences (Pohl et al. 2016 ). The significance of behavioral transitions was determined by the Z-score of the adjusted residuals (significant if Z  > 1.96). Behavioral transitions were visualized to present the behavioral patterns in terms of metacognition and cognition within the feedback processing and revision processes.

Third, a thematic analysis following the six-step procedures recommended by Braun and Clarke ( 2012 ) was applied to the interview transcripts. Two additional co-researchers were recruited to assist the researchers in coding and theme extraction. Disagreements among the co-researchers were solved through an ad hoc discussion convened and joined by the researcher.

Finally, when the data analyses were finalized, all findings were converged and triangulated to answer the research questions.

Behavioral engagement

After the quantified document analysis, the data on the participants’ feedback-seeking and revision operations were presented. Specifically, the actions of feedback seeking and revision were respectively manifested as detailed patterns in composing ChatGPT prompts and processing ChatGPT-generated feedback categorized by error types.

First, the actions of feedback seeking by the four participants were shown in Figs. 3 – 6 , respectively. According to the bar charts, Emma and Sophia created more than 2000 ChatGPT prompts in 5 weeks, followed by Robert’s 1670 and Mia’s 1238. Pertinent to the weekly developmental trends in using specific prompt writing techniques, Emma and Sophia have displayed similarities, indicating that the patterns of Robert and Mia were on common ground. For example, in using the [+QUA] technique (providing the user’s quality evaluation of the feedback to re-elicit feedback from ChatGPT), Emma and Sophia have displayed a parabolic curve in the weekly frequencies. At the same time, Robert and Mia have kept a growing momentum to use such a technique throughout the project.

Based on Yan ( 2024 b).

BP: minimal prompt; [+BG]: providing background information; [+TSK]: providing task requirement; [+PER]: providing virtual persona; [+TON]: ask to feedback with ascertain style and tone; [+SPE]: with additional specific demands; [-NAR]: ask to narrow down feedback foci; [+CRE]: ask to check credibility; [+Aff]: provide affective evaluation to regenerate feedback; [+QUA]: provide quality evaluation to regenerate feedback; [!REG]: totally regenerate feedback.

Second, the operations of revision of the four participants were gathered, coded, and categorized by the error types (see Tables 2 – 5 respectively for each participant). The taxonomy of errors was based on the coding instruments developed and used in the work by Ferris ( 2006 ) and Han and Hyland ( 2015 ). According to the results, ChatGPT has provided an average of 11 pieces of corrective feedback for Emma per writing task. Emma performed outstandingly with 74.55% of correct revision and actively used substitutions to correct her errors (14.55%), leaving a relatively limited amount of incorrectly executed revision (1.82%) and a low rate of rejection for correction suggestions (3.64%). Sophia’s performance in revision execution was basically on par with Emma’s (received 12.4 pieces of corrective feedback per task), with a high correction rate (74.19%), a good percentage of substitution (19.35%), and a low rate of correction suggestion rejection (4.84%). Alternatively, Robert and Mia, who have received more than 22 pieces of corrective feedback per task, attained lower rates of correct revision (about 60%) and substitution (≤6.25%), higher rates of incorrect revision (16.5% and 12.5% respectively), correction suggestion rejection (≥6.9%), and deletion (>10%).

Cognitive engagement

The results of the LSA for the participants are displayed in Tables 6 – 9 respectively. In the tables, the leftmost column refers to the starting behavior, while the top row stands for the following behavior in the sequence. The behavior sequence is statistically significant when the corresponding Z value of the adjusted residual is greater than 1.96 ( p  < 0.05). For example, the behavior sequence from planning to feedback seeking is statistically significant for Emma as the adjusted residual is significant ( Z  = 7.483).

The above four tables were visualized diagrammatically (see Fig. 7 for the behavioral transition diagram). Each node in the diagram stands for a category of (meta)cognitive strategies, while a line linking two nodes indicates a significant behavioral transition of the sequence.

P: planning, referring to allocation of time, resources for the following-up feedback and writing processes; M: monitoring, referring to an on-going process in which the quality feedback is observed and compared; E: evaluation, referring to an appraisal of the value and cost for a potential revision or correction based on the feedback selected from the monitoring process; F: feedback elicitation, referring to using the interactive communication with ChatGPT to elicit AWCF; N: feedback refinement, referring to comparing and finalizing potential feedback and ask ChatGPT to regenerate for quality improvement if the quality is unsatisfactory; D: making decision, referring to a final appraisal of the feedback quality and translate the feedback to a potential revision; R: executing the revision, referring to applying the finalized revision to the writing products.

Emma has displayed a relatively higher level of metacognitive regulatory skills. The utilization of cognitive strategies to seek feedback, that is, feedback elicitation and feedback refinement, was integrated with the metacognitive regulations, i.e., monitoring and evaluation. Such integration was characterized by the bidirectional interaction between feedback seeking and metacognitive monitoring (Z F→M  = 16.527; Z M→F  = 12.137), and the similar bidirectional behavioral sequence between monitoring and feedback refinement (Z N→M  = 9.009; Z M→N  = 12.679).

Sophia has demonstrated a similar pattern of utilizing cognitive and metacognitive strategies but in a relatively weaker fashion. Sharing a similar diagrammatical structure, the role of metacognitive monitoring has been reduced, typically in the feedback refinement processes (as indicated by the unidirectional sequence of M → N, Z M→N  = 15.209). However, the role played by metacognitive monitoring during the feedback elicitation processes remained strong (as indicated by the bidirectional behavioral sequence of F ⇌ M, Z F→M  = 18.15; Z M→F  = 3.834).

Contrarily, the diagrams of Robert and Mia were simple and absent of the interweaving between cognitive and metacognitive strategies. In Robert’s case, metacognitive strategies, i.e., monitoring and evaluation, were involved in the learning processes. He was incapable of effectively and metacognitively regulating his learning behaviors, resulting in most of his feedback elicitation and refinement being one-off activities (as indicated by the unidirectional sequences of Z N→M  = 15.633; Z M→E  = 15.126; and Z E→D  = 12.911). Similarly, Mia has failed to integrate cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Compared to Robert, her case was even worse, as the metacognitive monitoring and evaluation were eventually severed from her feedback-seeking and revision behaviors (as indicated by Z N→M  = 8.698; Z N→D  = 9.755; Z M→E  = 10.419; and the disconnection between E and D).

Affective engagement

In the interview, all four participants were invited to express their affective engagement with AWCF provided by ChatGPT. We used four representative quotes to represent the four major themes that emerged from the qualitative data: (1) a beneficial journey; (2) challenges and mental stresses; (3) easier to deal with GAI-generated negative feedback; and (4) continuous usage in the future.

First, students described the overall journey of using ChatGPT for AWCF as a beneficial and interesting experience. Students showcased remarkable trust in the quality of ChatGPT-generated AWCF, especially when their skills at writing prompts increased. Emma described her experiences as a “fun journey.” She was rather satisfied with ChatGPT-generated feedback, as it was of “remarkable quality and great versatility.” Sophia, sharing relatively a large proportion of Emma’s viewpoints, summarized her experiences during the project as a “thrilling journey in a bizarre yet magnificent site.” She reported that the quality of ChatGPT-generated feedback was not always stable yet mostly trustworthy and clear to follow. Robert, seeing his experiences as a “ride on the highway,” was satisfied with ChatGPT as a feedback provider for its promptness and automated workflow. Mia concluded her journey with the project as a “shocking and slow-paced exploration.” She was satisfied with the tool and the learning environment, but not so much with her own progress.

Second, students identified the cognitive challenges they have faced and the resultant mental stresses. A consensus reached by the participants was the logistical issues, particularly the time spent seeking and refining ChatGPT’s responses while using ChatGPT for AWCF. For example, Emma reflected that the processes took her a relatively longer time and were a little bit mentally taxing, as she must “try very hard to seek better prompts that will bring feedback of higher quality and value.” Sophia expressed her desire for more training and scaffolding from teachers since one-on-one conversations with ChatGPT cannot be “sustained with fruitful outcomes.” The feedback-seeking and revision processes were “interesting, rewarding, but challenging” to her, and she was somewhat mentally stressed after using ChatGPT continuously for feedback. Mia explained that the feedback-seeking process was rewarding but hard and took her too much time since she regarded herself as a slow-paced learner. The only exception is Robert, who found that the feedback-seeking processes were “a little bit boring” but not mentally taxing at all since he was confident in his digital competence.

Third, students favored ChatGPT when the tones of AWCF were negative and harsh. Compared to the traditional scenarios, the students were relieved of the shame and “losing face” experience in front of teachers and peers. Emma asserted that it’s much easier for her to accept negative feedback from AI systems than teachers in the classroom. Mia shared a similar feeling that handling ChatGPT-generated negative feedback feels like those from an anonymous agent.

Finally, students expressed their interest in continuously using ChatGPT in the future. On a broader spectrum, the students acknowledge the value and applicability of ChatGPT as an AWCF provider. As Emma remarked, “using AI for corrective feedback will be normal in the future, and the tips and tricks we have explored will be of valuable significance”. Sophia was sure that she would continue to explore the more advanced features of ChatGPT in writing classrooms, but Mia was worried that she would be outperformed by her classmates as she was slow to pick up the more sophisticated tricks and usage. Robert claimed rather straightforwardly that he would be using ChatGPT after the project to “avoid face-to-face feedback from teachers”.

Discussions

The study explored the behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement of L2 writers with corrective feedback provided by ChatGPT in feedback-seeking and revision processes. The findings are categorically presented and discussed in the following sections against existing research and theoretical insights.

Proactive feedback seeking and revision behaviors

The four participants’ behavioral engagement revealed that students were actively involved in the feedback-seeking and revision execution processes. At first glance, all four participants have made progress in seeking feedback from ChatGPT throughout the weeks. Internally, high language-proficiency learners (represented by Emma and Sophia), showed a more sophisticated approach to refining ChatGPT prompts. Instead of repeatedly asking ChatGPT to regenerate feedback, the two learners focused on the quality and content richness of the prompts. The observed varieties could be explained by the process of inner feedback , a term advocated by Nicol ( 2021 ) to represent the natural processing and comparison after learners’ exposure to feedback. Based on the findings, we could infer that the ability to internally process the received feedback during the feedback seeking from ChatGPT depended on the students’ language proficiencies. From another perspective, students’ feedback-seeking behaviors revealed that students with a higher level of technological competence were likely to make more attempts in feedback elicitation and refinement. The specific result was in line with the widely accepted viewpoint that a higher level of ICT competence or digital literacy would lead to more advanced learning outcomes in a technology-enhanced learning environment (Park and Weng 2020 ; Yan and Wang 2022 ).

Similarly, participants with different language proficiencies manifested varied patterns in translating the received feedback to revision execution. Apart from the differences in total errors detected by the AI system per writing task, the most drastic discrepancies among the four participants in the revision operation were the rate of correct revision and adoption of revision strategies. On the one hand, the rate of correct revision was higher than that from precedent research with Grammarly as a feedback provider (i.e., Koltovskaia 2020 ). This could be explained by the alleged strength of ChatGPT in correcting grammatical errors (H. Wu et al. 2023 ). On the other hand, the observation that high-proficiency language learners would make significantly more substitutions than low-proficiency learners echoed the findings of Barkaoui ( 2016 ). However, in contrast with Barkaoui’s ( 2016 ) study, low-proficiency language learners made significantly more revision deletions than their peers. Comprehensively, the students, especially the low-proficiency ones, have ineffectively utilized the corrective feedback provided by ChatGPT. This phenomenon was in line with previous literature (Warschauer and Grimes 2008 ; Chapelle et al. 2015 ).

Diversified metacognitive regulatory skills

Cognitively, the extent to which the participants were engaged with the ChatGPT-generated corrective feedback diversified distinctly. Generally, the students performed unsatisfactorily to metacognitively regulate their learning, especially during the feedback-seeking processes. This phenomenon was in unison with Koltovskaia’s ( 2020 ) study, where the participants failed to process AWCF effectively. Furthermore, the relatively poor metacognitive strategy use also testified to the finding of Zhang and Zhang ( 2022 ) that the AWCF hindered students’ active utilization of monitoring and evaluation strategies. Specifically, higher proficiency learners (represented by Emma and Sophia) have effectively utilized metacognitive monitoring and evaluation of the quality of the received feedback to make full use of the strength of ChatGPT; conversely, the lower proficiency learners (i.e., Robert and Mia) could not effectively integrate the metacognitive strategies with the cognitive processes. The variations in the metacognitive regulatory skills among the participants could be attributed to the view of Zheng and Yu ( 2018 ) that insufficient language proficiency would hinder learners’ ability to process feedback and revision.

Unexpected findings emerged from the comparison of the LSA results between Robert and Mia. Based on the data and the visualization, we could posit that students possessing better technological competence could compensate for their limited abilities to monitor and evaluate the quality of received feedback with intensive communication with AI systems. Such inference underlined the revolutionary affordance of ChatGPT’s conversational AI system in providing a highly customizable and learner-aware environment that satisfies learners’ needs through repeated and creative prompt writing (Ranalli 2018 ; Oppenlaender et al. 2023 ; Rudolph et al. 2023 ). Additionally, the finding was in tandem with the meta-analysis results of Wu and Yu ( 2023 ) that AI chatbots were impactful on learning outcomes. The insights would create a new understanding of students’ feedback processing in a learning environment equipped with GAI-based or conversational tools.

An affectively engaging learning environment

The attitudinal and emotional responses towards ChatGPT-generated AWCF and the new GAI-powered learning environment were mostly positive. The overall satisfaction with and acceptance of ChatGPT as a corrective feedback provider was in line with relevant studies in the field of AWCF (Dikli and Bleyle 2014 ; Koltovskaia 2020 ). Furthermore, participants have agreed that the quality of ChatGPT-generated corrective feedback was reliable and accurate. Compared to previous research on the acceptance and evaluation of AWE systems and tools such as Grammarly, the performance of ChatGPT was convincing and well acclaimed by its users (Zhang 2017 ; Koltovskaia 2020 ; Ranalli 2021 ). This phenomenon could be attributed to the interplay of the computational might of the AI system (Fang et al. 2023 ; Wu et al. 2023 ) and its interactive human-machine interface (Oppenlaender et al. 2023 ).

However, participants stressed the mental effort expenditure that resulted from using ChatGPT in L2 writing classrooms. This was not unexpected, as AWCF providers or AWE systems have always been linked with cognitive overload in previous studies (Ranalli 2018 ; Barrot 2021 ). Nevertheless, the cognitive burden experienced by users of ChatGPT was the aggregate of mental effort expenditure for both feedback seeking and feedback processing. The finding ushered in new insights that would expand our understanding of students’ cognitive load in utilizing feedback for L2 writing. Moreover, the finding was in tandem with a recent research trend beyond the scope of AWCF studies to explore how to effectively compose high-quality ChatGPT prompts (Oppenlaender et al. 2023 ; White et al. 2023 ) and how to develop students’ abilities to communicate with GAI systems (Yan 2023 ; Yan 2024b ).

The multiple mixed-method case study, involving four students with different language proficiencies and technological competences from an EFL program, has explored L2 writers’ engagement with ChatGPT-provided corrective feedback from behavioral, cognitive, and affective perspectives. The findings revealed that: 1) students were behaviorally engaged with ChatGPT-generated feedback; however, their feedback-seeking behaviors and revision operations are highly related to language proficiencies and technological competences; 2) only high language proficiency learners could cognitively engage with ChatGPT-generated AWCF by effectively utilizing metacognitive regulatory strategies; and 3) ChatGPT was well-received by participants as a powerful and affectively engaging AWCF provider.

Adding to the body of literature on students’ engagement with AWCF, the study also focuses on the changes in learning brought about by the appearance of ChatGPT. Noticeably, the research underlines the importance of technological competence for L2 learners exposed to technology-enhanced learning environments. Furthermore, as an initial effort to investigate the patterns of learning behaviors and utilization of (meta)cognitive strategies of L2 writers in a GAI-powered environment, the study offers insights into how students are involved in seeking feedback instead of receiving feedback from AWCF providers and how the feedback processing and revision processes are regulated metacognitively.

The diversity of student engagement with ChatGPT-generated corrective feedback, as manifested by the study, has significant pedagogical implications. First, ChatGPT was not only a powerful rival to its precedents but also an affectively engaging solution with which a new learning environment could be constructed. As a result, the inclusion of GAI-based applications as learning assistants in L2 classrooms should be popularized. Second, teacher scaffolding or instruction on the utilization of ChatGPT for the purposes of L2 writing pedagogy or assessment should be developed and provided. As reflected in the study, learners’ individual ability to metacognitively regulate feedback seeking and revision execution is a far cry from perfection. Hence, support from instructors and peer learners is highly expected. Third, a more rational attitude towards the position of GAI-based products in education should be upheld. Instead of a “silver bullet” or a terminator of education, ChatGPT’s integration in classrooms needs the enhancement of students’ and instructors’ multicompetence and the corresponding restructuring of instructional patterns. Finally, from an L2 learner perspective, the relatively high drop-out rate during the participant recruitment showed that, at least at the current stage, students didn’t possess sufficient AI competence and domain knowledge to effectively utilize GAI for longer-time learning improvement. Thus, sustained efforts should be provided in training students of the contemporary era into better users of state-of-the-art technologies.

The study was not without limitations. First, the study adopted a multiple-case study approach methodologically. Hence, researchers should be cautious when translating or generalizing the findings of the present study to different research settings with larger populations. In follow-up research, alternative research methods could be considered to comprehensively investigate the impact of ChatGPT on a larger number of language learners. Second, the duration of the research is limited. In a five-week project, students have completed merely five writing tasks with limited exposure to ChatGPT. In subsequent studies, researchers could try to conduct longitudinal investigations through which the long-term effects of ChatGPT on the learning behaviors and outcomes of L2 learners could be uncovered. Third, the modes of sources of feedback are limited. The study partially adopted a self-regulated learning style for the participants. Hence, the role of peer learners and instructors in processing the feedback was not examined. In successive inquiries, researchers could introduce collaborative learning or peer scaffolding into the learning environment. Fourth, the impact of ChatGPT-generated feedback on writing of different genres was not studied. In future studies, researchers could delve into the effects of the AWCF provided by ChatGPT on multiple types and genres of writing. In general, with the exhibited potential of ChatGPT as a game changer for language education, the researcher hopes the study could kindle more in-depth insights into the pedagogical practice of utilizing GAI-based applications in L2 classrooms.

Data availability

The pseudonymized data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The raw data are not publicly available due to the concern that they might disclose the privacy of the participants.

Adams G (2019) A narrative study of the experience of feedback on a professional doctorate: ‘a kind of flowing conversation. Stud Contin Educ 41(2):191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2018.1526782

Article   Google Scholar  

Bai L, Hu G (2017) In the face of fallible AWE feedback: how do students respond? Educ Psychol 37(1):67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1223275

Bakeman R, Quera V (2011) Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139017343

Barkaoui K (2016) What and when second-language learners revise when responding to timed writing tasks on the computer: the roles of task type, second language proficiency, and keyboarding skills. Mod Lang J 100(1):320–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12316

Barrot JS (2021) Using automated written corrective feedback in the writing classrooms: effects on L2 writing accuracy. Comput Assist Lang Learn. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1936071

Bowen GA (2009) Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J 9(2):27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

Braun V, Clarke V (2012) Thematic analysis. In: APA handbook of research methods in psychology, vol 2: research designs: quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. APA handbooks in psychology®. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004

Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A et al. (2014) The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncol Nurs Forum 41(5):545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chapelle CA, Cotos E, Lee J (2015) Validity arguments for diagnostic assessment using automated writing evaluation. Lang Test 32(3):385–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214565386

Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL (2018) Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 3rd edn. SAGE, LA

Dikli S, Bleyle S (2014) Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback? Assess Writ 22:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.006

Dizon G, Gayed J (2021) Examining the impact of Grammarly on the quality of mobile L2 writing. JALT CALL J 17(2):74–92. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v17n2.336

Doyle S (2007) Member checking with older women: a framework for negotiating meaning. Health Care Women Int 28(10):888–908. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399330701615325

Duff P (2010) Case study research in applied linguistics. Second language acqusition research. Routledge, New York

Google Scholar  

Ellis R (2010) A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Stud Second Lang Acq 32(2):335–349. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990544

Fan Y, Xu J (2020) Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing. J Second Lang Writ 50:100775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100775

Fang T, Yang S, Lan K et al. (2023) Is ChatGPT a highly fluent grammatical error correction system? A comprehensive evaluation. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2304.01746

Ferris D (2006) Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In: Hyland, F, Hyland, K (eds) Feedback in second language writing: contexts and issues. Cambridge applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007

Fleckenstein J, Leucht M, Köller O (2018) Teachers’ judgement accuracy concerning CEFR levels of prospective university students. Lang Assess Q 15(1):90–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2017.1421956

Fleckenstein J, Liebenow LW, Meyer J (2023) Automated feedback and writing: a multi-level meta-analysis of effects on students’ performance. Front Artif Intell. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1162454

Fu Q-K, Zou D, Xie H et al. (2022) A review of AWE feedback: types, learning outcomes, and implications. Comput Assist Lang Learn. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2033787

Gong H, Yan D (2023) The impact of danmaku-based and synchronous peer feedback on L2 oral performance: a mixed-method investigation. PLoS ONE 18(4):e0284843. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284843

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Han Y, Gao X (2021) Research on learner engagement with written (corrective) feedback: insights and issues. In: Mercer, S, Hiver, P, Al-Hoorie, AH (eds) Student engagement in the language classroom. Multilingual Matters, pp 56–74. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788923613-007

Han Y, Hyland F (2015) Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. J Second Lang Writ 30:31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002

Hiver P, Al-Hoorie AH, Vitta JP et al. (2021) Engagement in language learning: a systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions. Lang Teach Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211001289

Hyland K, Hyland F (2019) Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing. In: Hyland, F (ed) Feedback in second language writing: contexts and issues, 2nd edn. Cambridge applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.003

Jamshed S (2014) Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation. J Basic Clin Pharm 5(4):87–88. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-0105.141942

Jansen T, Vögelin C, Machts N et al. (2021) Judgment accuracy in experienced versus student teachers: assessing essays in English as a foreign language. Teach Teach Educ 97:103216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103216

Jiao W, Wang W, Huang J et al. (2023) Is ChatGPT a good translator? Yes with GPT-4 As the engine. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.08745

Jin Y, Fan J (2011) Test for English majors (TEM) in China. Lang Test 28(4):589–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211414852

Koltovskaia S (2020) Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: a multiple case study. Assess Writ 44:100450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450

Koltovskaia S, Mahapatra S (2022) Student engagement with computer-mediated teacher written corrective feedback: a case study. JALT CALL J 18(2):286–315. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v18n2.519

Lee H (2023) The rise of ChatGPT: exploring its potential in medical education. Anat Sci Educ. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2270

Li J, Link S, Hegelheimer V (2015) Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. J Second Lang Writ 27:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004

Liu S, Yu G (2022) L2 learners’ engagement with automated feedback: an eye-tracking study. Lang Learn Technol 26(2):78–105. 10125/73480

Mercer S (2019) Language learner engagement: setting the scene. In: Gao, X (ed) Second handbook of English language teaching. Springer international handbooks of education, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58542-0_40-1

Mizumoto A, Eguchi M (2023) Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring. Res Methods Appl Linguist 2(2):100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100050

Naamati-Schneider L, Alt D (2024) Beyond digital literacy: the era of AI-powered assistants and evolving user skills. Educ Inf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12694-z

Nelson MM, Schunn CD (2009) The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instr Sci 37(4):375–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x

Nicol D (2021) The power of internal feedback: exploiting natural comparison processes. Assess Eval High Educ 46(5):756–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1823314

ONeill R, Russell A (2019) Stop! Grammar time: university students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly. Australas J Educ Technol. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3795

Oppenlaender J, Linder R, Silvennoinen J (2023) Prompting AI art: an investigation into the creative skill of prompt engineering. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.13534

Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA et al. (2015) Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health 42(5):533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

Park S, Weng W (2020) The relationship between ICT-related factors and student academic achievement and the moderating effect of country economic index across 39 countries: using multilevel structural equation modelling. Educ Technol Soc 23(3):1–15

Pohl M, Wallner G, Kriglstein S (2016) Using lag-sequential analysis for understanding interaction sequences in visualizations. Int J Hum Comput Stud 96:54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.07.006

Rad HS, Alipour R, Jafarpour A (2023) Using artificial intelligence to foster students’ writing feedback literacy, engagement, and outcome: a case of Wordtune application. Interact Learn Environ. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2208170

Ranalli J (2018) Automated written corrective feedback: how well can students make use of it? Comput Assist Lang Learn 31(7):653–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994

Ranalli J (2021) L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: potential for learning and issues of trust. J Second Lang Writ 52:100816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100816

Rudolph J, Tan S, Tan S (2023) ChatGPT: bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? J Appl Learn Teach 6(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9

Shi Y (2021) Exploring learner engagement with multiple sources of feedback on L2 writing across genres. Front. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.758867

Sonnenberg C, Bannert M (2015) Discovering the effects of metacognitive prompts on the sequential structure of SRL-processes using process mining techniques. J Learn Anal 2(1):72–100. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2015.21.5

Stake RE (1995) The art of case study research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

Steiss J, Tate T, Graham S et al. (2024) Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students’ writing. Eur Res Int 91:101894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894

Stevenson M, Phakiti A (2019) Automated feedback and second language writing. In: Hyland, F, Hyland, K (eds) Feedback in second language writing: contexts and issues, 2nd edn. Cambridge applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.009

Tan S, Cho YW, Xu W (2022) Exploring the effects of automated written corrective feedback, computer-mediated peer feedback and their combination mode on EFL learner’s writing performance. Interact Learn Environ. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2066137

Tonmoy SMTI, Zaman SMM, Jain V et al. (2024) A comprehensive survey of hallucination mitigation techniques in large language models. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.01313

Tseng W, Warschauer M (2023) AI-writing tools in education: if you can’t beat them, join them. J China Comput Assist Lang Learn. https://doi.org/10.1515/jccall-2023-0008

Warschauer M, Grimes D (2008) Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies 3(1):22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800701771580

Watkins MW, Pacheco M (2000) Interobserver agreement in behavioral research: Importance and calculation. J Behav Educ 10(4):205–212. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012295615144

White J, Fu Q, Hays S et al. (2023) A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with ChatGPT. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2302.11382

Wood J (2022) Supporting the uptake process with dialogic peer screencast feedback: a sociomaterial perspective. Teach Higher Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2042243

Wu H, Wang W, Wan Y et al. (2023) ChatGPT or Grammarly? Evaluating ChatGPT on grammatical error correction benchmark. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2303.13648

Wu R, Yu Z (2023) Do AI chatbots improve students learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Brit J Educ Technol. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13334

Yan D (2023) Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: an exploratory investigation. Educ Inf Technol 28(11):13943–13967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4

Yan D (2024a) Rubric co-creation to promote quality, interactivity and uptake of peer feedback. Assess Eval Higher Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2333005

Yan D (2024b) Feedback seeking abilities of L2 writers using ChatGPT: a mixed method multiple case study. Kybernetes. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2023-1933

Yan D, Wang J (2022) Teaching data science to undergraduate translation trainees: pilot evaluation of a task-based course. Front Psychol 13:939689. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.939689

Yin RK (2013) Case study research: design and methods. 5th edn. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles

Zhang J, Zhang LJ (2022) The effect of feedback on metacognitive strategy use in EFL writing. Comput Assist Lang Learn. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2069822

Zhang Z (2017) Student engagement with computer-generated feedback: a case study. ELT J 71(3):317–328. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw089

Zhang Z, Hyland K (2018) Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assess Writ 36:90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004

Zhang Z, Hyland K (2023) Student engagement with peer feedback in L2 writing: Insights from reflective journaling and revising practices. Assess Writ 58:100784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100784

Zheng L, Niu J, Zhong L et al. (2021) The effectiveness of artificial intelligence on learning achievement and learning perception: a meta-analysis. Interact Learn Environ. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2015693

Zheng Y, Yu S (2018) Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: a case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assess Writ 37:13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research project is supported by funding from the Young Researcher Program of Xinyang Agriculture and Forestry University [Grant QN2022049, QN2021033]. We would also like to thank all the anonymous reviewers for the constructive feedback.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Foreign Languages, Xinyang Agricultural and Forestry University, Xinyang, China

Da Yan & Shuxian Zhang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Da Yan: conceptualization, data curation, writing—original draft, formal analysis, project administration, writing—review, and editing. Shuxian Zhang: data curation, coding, and writing—review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shuxian Zhang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

At the time of the study, Xinyang Agriculture and Forestry University had no policy for ethical clearance, nor did it have an ethical committee. Thus, ethical approval was obtained from the School of Foreign Languages, Xinyang Agriculture and Forestry University in December 2022. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards, including existing laws and regulations on personal data, privacy, and research data management.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained via email from all participants before the study in December 2022.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplemental material, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Yan, D., Zhang, S. L2 writer engagement with automated written corrective feedback provided by ChatGPT: A mixed-method multiple case study. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 1086 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03543-y

Download citation

Received : 27 February 2024

Accepted : 31 July 2024

Published : 26 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03543-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Conceptual Framework Introducing the Success Factors for Implementing Intelligent Automation-A Qualitative Multiple Case Study

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options, index terms.

Applied computing

Enterprise computing

Business process management

Recommendations

Fundamental framework for task mining technology adoption: results from a qualitative empirical study.

Digitalization influences business processes and their management. Digital technologies such as Process Mining (PM) or Robotic Process Automation (RPA), which are becoming more and more prevalent, offer new possibilities for process analysis, monitoring,...

A conceptual framework for business intelligence critical success factors

From theoretical and practical viewpoints, business intelligence application is considered by scholars and managers in their organisations. Most organisations are seeking to develop their capabilities and to gain a sustainable competitive advantage ...

The Critical Success Factors for Robotic Process Automation

Robotic Process Automation (RPA) is a comparably new phenomenon in process digitalization and automation. Prior research has identified a clear need to analyze Critical Success Factors (CSF) for RPA. In this study, we set out to derive ...

• Critical success factors (CSFs) are aspects organizations should focus on with regards to Robotic Process Automation (RPA).

Information

Published in.

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Check for updates, author tags.

• Artificial Intelligence
• Business Process Management
• Empirical Study
• Intelligent Automation
• Process Automation
• Qualitative Study
• Semi-structured Interviews
• Research-article
• Refereed limited

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 0 Total Citations
• 0 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

View options

View or Download as a PDF file.

View online with eReader .

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

Estimating Ancestral States of Complex Characters: A Case Study on the Evolution of Feathers

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• ORCID record for Pierre Cockx
• For correspondence: [email protected] [email protected]
• ORCID record for Michael J. Benton
• ORCID record for Joseph N. Keating
• Info/History
• Supplementary material
• Preview PDF

Feathers are a key novelty underpinning the evolutionary success of birds, yet the origin of feathers remains poorly understood. Debates about feather evolution hinge upon whether filamentous integument has evolved once or multiple time independently on the lineage leading to modern birds. These contradictory results stem from subjective methodological differences in statistical ancestral state estimates. Here we conduct a comprehensive comparison of ancestral state estimation methodologies applied to stem-group birds, testing the role of outgroup inclusion, tree time scaling method, model choice and character coding strategy. Models are compared based on their Akaike Information Criteria (AIC), mutual information, as well as the uncertainty of marginal ancestral state estimates. Our results demonstrate that ancestral state estimates of stem-bird integument are strongly influenced by tree time scaling method, outgroup selection and model choice, while character coding strategy seems to have less effect on the ancestral estimates produced. We identify the best fitting models using AIC scores and a leave-one-out cross-validation approach (LOOCV). Our analyses broadly support the independent origin of filamentous integument in dinosaurs and pterosaurs and support a younger evolutionary origin of feathers than has been suggested previously. More generally, our study highlights that special care must be taken in selecting the outgroup, tree and model when conducting ASE analyses. With respect to model selection, our results suggest that considering a LOOCV approach, may yield more reliable results than simply comparing AIC scores when the analyses involve a limited number of taxa.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

View the discussion thread.

Supplementary Material

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager
• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One

Subject Area

• Paleontology
• Animal Behavior and Cognition (5560)
• Biochemistry (12640)
• Bioengineering (9517)
• Bioinformatics (30984)
• Biophysics (15930)
• Cancer Biology (13014)
• Cell Biology (18611)
• Clinical Trials (138)
• Developmental Biology (10066)
• Ecology (15050)
• Epidemiology (2067)
• Evolutionary Biology (19240)
• Genetics (12795)
• Genomics (17628)
• Immunology (12761)
• Microbiology (29859)
• Molecular Biology (12451)
• Neuroscience (65074)
• Paleontology (483)
• Pathology (2012)
• Pharmacology and Toxicology (3478)
• Physiology (5378)
• Plant Biology (11159)
• Scientific Communication and Education (1730)
• Synthetic Biology (3071)
• Systems Biology (7714)
• Zoology (1737)

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Single case studies vs. multiple case studies: A comparative study

There are several different definitions and kinds of case studies. Because of different reasons the case studies can be either single or multiple. This study attempts to answer when to write a single case study and when to write a multiple case study. It will further answer the benefits and disadvantages with the different types. The literature review, which is based on secondary sources, is about case studies. Then the literature review is discussed and analysed to reach a conclusion. The conclusion is that there are several different opinions if a single case study or a multiple case study is the best choice. Different causes to consider in the choice to make a single case study or a multiple case study are presented. Some causes are that the amount depends on the context, upon how much is known and how much new information the cases bring. Another conclusion from the case studies I looked among is that it is generally more number of pages in the multiple case studies than in the ...

Related Papers

rizwan gujjar

Annals of Tourism Research

Asli D.A. Tasci

Nadine Álvarez Montoya

The Canadian Journal of Action Research

Trudie Aberdeen

Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 219-245

Bent Flyvbjerg

This article examines five common misunderstandings about case-study research: (a) theoretical knowledge is more valuable than practical knowledge; (b) one cannot generalize from a single case, therefore, the single-case study cannot contribute to scientific development; (c) the case study is most useful for generating hypotheses, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building; (d) the case study contains a bias toward verification; and (e) it is often difficult to summarize specific case studies. This article explains and corrects these misunderstandings one by one and concludes with the Kuhnian insight that a scientific discipline without a large number of thoroughly executed case studies is a discipline without systematic production of exemplars, and a discipline without exemplars is an ineffective one. Social science may be strengthened by the execution of a greater number of good case studies.

Piotr Zaborek

Revista de Administração de Empresas

Gustavo Pedroso de Moraes

The purpose of this article is to present a defense of the use of single case studies in management research. The defense is necessary because this type of research has been relegated to a secondary role, or even rejected, by many researchers, who consider it unscientific. Evidence of this low status is the fact that most reputable academic journals in management publish few articles based on single-case studies. In this paper, we examine in detail the objections to the use of such cases in management research. We show the efforts made by some researchers to answer these objections and we show quality criteria for research that are alternatives to the criteria used in the so-called &quot;scientific method.&quot; Our analysis suggests that a better understanding - by researchers with different methodological preferences - of the arguments for each particular use of the single-case study as a research method would allow a better dialogue between researchers and benefit management rese...

David E Gray

Yhonier Gonzalez

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

EmmsMt Ntuli

Simon Phelan

ZUHAL AHNAN

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

William M. Runyan

David Suárez

Steve Allen

soc.kuleuven.be

Salvador Parrado

Southern Utah University

Hayden Coombs

Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business

Paul Matthyssens

Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering - EASE '14

Leon Moonen

Rossad Ferdinand

Veritas: The Academic Journal of St Clements Education Group

Mohamed A Eno , abderrazak dammak

Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy

Daniel B Fishman

Why Pilot Study is Important in Case Study Research

ogb ogoloma

Adrian Carr

Annika Tönjes

Raymond Obeng

Robert Klonoski

Arch Woodside

The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation

Trista Hollweck

The Journal of Agricultural Sciences - Sri Lanka

rohitha rosairo

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Blog The Education Hub

https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/08/20/gcse-results-day-2024-number-grading-system/

GCSE results day 2024: Everything you need to know including the number grading system

Thousands of students across the country will soon be finding out their GCSE results and thinking about the next steps in their education.   

Here we explain everything you need to know about the big day, from when results day is, to the current 9-1 grading scale, to what your options are if your results aren’t what you’re expecting.  

When is GCSE results day 2024?  

GCSE results day will be taking place on Thursday the 22 August.     

The results will be made available to schools on Wednesday and available to pick up from your school by 8am on Thursday morning.  

Schools will issue their own instructions on how and when to collect your results.   

When did we change to a number grading scale?  

The shift to the numerical grading system was introduced in England in 2017 firstly in English language, English literature, and maths.  

By 2020 all subjects were shifted to number grades. This means anyone with GCSE results from 2017-2020 will have a combination of both letters and numbers.  

The numerical grading system was to signal more challenging GCSEs and to better differentiate between students’ abilities - particularly at higher grades between the A *-C grades. There only used to be 4 grades between A* and C, now with the numerical grading scale there are 6.  

What do the number grades mean?  

The grades are ranked from 1, the lowest, to 9, the highest.  

The grades don’t exactly translate, but the two grading scales meet at three points as illustrated below.  

The bottom of grade 7 is aligned with the bottom of grade A, while the bottom of grade 4 is aligned to the bottom of grade C.    

Meanwhile, the bottom of grade 1 is aligned to the bottom of grade G.  

What to do if your results weren’t what you were expecting?  

If your results weren’t what you were expecting, firstly don’t panic. You have options.  

First things first, speak to your school or college – they could be flexible on entry requirements if you’ve just missed your grades.   

They’ll also be able to give you the best tailored advice on whether re-sitting while studying for your next qualifications is a possibility.   

If you’re really unhappy with your results you can enter to resit all GCSE subjects in summer 2025. You can also take autumn exams in GCSE English language and maths.  

Speak to your sixth form or college to decide when it’s the best time for you to resit a GCSE exam.  

Look for other courses with different grade requirements     

Entry requirements vary depending on the college and course. Ask your school for advice, and call your college or another one in your area to see if there’s a space on a course you’re interested in.    

Consider an apprenticeship    

Apprenticeships combine a practical training job with study too. They’re open to you if you’re 16 or over, living in England, and not in full time education.  

As an apprentice you’ll be a paid employee, have the opportunity to work alongside experienced staff, gain job-specific skills, and get time set aside for training and study related to your role.   

You can find out more about how to apply here .  

Talk to a National Careers Service (NCS) adviser    

The National Career Service is a free resource that can help you with your career planning. Give them a call to discuss potential routes into higher education, further education, or the workplace.   

Whatever your results, if you want to find out more about all your education and training options, as well as get practical advice about your exam results, visit the  National Careers Service page  and Skills for Careers to explore your study and work choices.   

You may also be interested in:

• Results day 2024: What's next after picking up your A level, T level and VTQ results?
• When is results day 2024? GCSEs, A levels, T Levels and VTQs

Tags: GCSE grade equivalent , gcse number grades , GCSE results , gcse results day 2024 , gsce grades old and new , new gcse grades

Sharing and comments

Share this page, related content and links, about the education hub.

The Education Hub is a site for parents, pupils, education professionals and the media that captures all you need to know about the education system. You’ll find accessible, straightforward information on popular topics, Q&As, interviews, case studies, and more.

Please note that for media enquiries, journalists should call our central Newsdesk on 020 7783 8300. This media-only line operates from Monday to Friday, 8am to 7pm. Outside of these hours the number will divert to the duty media officer.

Members of the public should call our general enquiries line on 0370 000 2288.

Sign up and manage updates

Follow us on social media, search by date.

Comments and moderation policy

Multiple Case Research Design

• First Online: 04 January 2024

Cite this chapter

• Stefan Hunziker 3 &
• Michael Blankenagel 3  

892 Accesses

2 Citations

This chapter addresses multiple case research designs’ peculiarities, characteristics, and major fallacies. The significant advantage of multiple-case research lies in cross-case analysis. A multiple-case research design shifts the focus from understanding a single case to the differences and similarities between cases. Thus, it is more than conducting more case studies (second, third, etc.). Instead, it is the next step in developing a theory about factors driving differences and similarities. Also, researchers find relevant information on how to write a multiple case research design paper and learn about typical methodologies used for this research design. The chapter closes by referring to overlapping and adjacent research designs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bruns, W. J., & McKinnon, S. M. (1993). Information and managers: A field study. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 5, 84–108.

Google Scholar  

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1), 25–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ferreira, L. D., & Merchant, K. A. (1992). Field research in management accounting and control: A review and evaluation . Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Keating, P. J. (1995). A framework for classifying and evaluating the theoretical contributions of case research in management accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7, 66–86.

Lillis, A. M., & Mundy, J. (2005). Cross-sectional field studies in management accounting research—closing the gaps between surveys and case studies. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 17 (1), 119–141.

Ragin, C. C. (2009). Reflections on casing and case-oriented research (pp. 522–534). The Sage handbook of case-based method.

Ridder, H.-G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research, 10 (2), 281–305.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466).

Vaughan, D. (1992). Theory elaboration: The heuristics of case analysis. What is a case?. In C. C. Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.), Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 173–202). Cambridge University Press.

Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15 (3), 320–330.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wirtschaft/IFZ, Campus Zug-Rotkreuz, Hochschule Luzern, Zug-Rotkreuz, Zug, Switzerland

Stefan Hunziker & Michael Blankenagel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Hunziker .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Hunziker, S., Blankenagel, M. (2024). Multiple Case Research Design. In: Research Design in Business and Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42739-9_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42739-9_9

Published : 04 January 2024

Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-42738-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-42739-9

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A multi-objective optimization approach for solar farm site selection: case study in maputo, mozambique.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 3. materials and methods, 3.1. study area and data preparation.

• Digital Elevation Models (DEMs): Detailed elevation data of the Earth’s surface at a resolution of about 30 m.
• Slope and Aspect Maps: Information on the steepness (slope) and orientation (aspect) of the land, extracted from the DEM data as shown in Figure 2 c,d.

3.2. Methodology

3.2.1. multi-objective optimization model.

• Maximizing the solar radiation

3.2.2. NSGA-II

4.1. pareto front analysis, 4.2. variability analysis, 4.3. optimal solution maps, 5. discussion, 5.1. running performance metrics, 5.2. performance tracking, 6. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Owusu, P.A.; Asumadu-Sarkodie, S. A review of renewable energy sources, sustainability issues and climate change mitigation. Cogent Eng. 2016 , 3 , 1167990. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Olabi, A.G.; Abdelkareem, M.A. Renewable energy and climate change. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022 , 158 , 112111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ellabban, O.; Abu-Rub, H.; Blaabjerg, F. Renewable energy resources: Current status, future prospects and their enabling technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014 , 39 , 748–764. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Islam, M.T.; Huda, N.; Abdullah, A.B.; Saidur, R. A comprehensive review of state-of-the-art concentrating solar power (CSP) technologies: Current status and research trends. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018 , 91 , 987–1018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cristóvão, L.; Chichango, F.; Massinga, P., Jr.; Macanguisse, J. The Potential of Renewable Energy in Mozambique: An Overview. J. Energy Technol. Policy 2021 , 11 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hankins, M. A Renewable Energy Plan for Mozambique ; Justica Ambiental: Maputo, Mozambique, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wasinee, W. The Potential of Biomass Fuel and Land Suitability for Biomass Power Plant based on GIS Spatial Analysis in the Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2020 , 78 , 325–330. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Y.; Li, Y.; Zheng, L.; Cui, L.; Li, S.; Li, W.; Cai, Y. Site selection of wind farms using GIS and multi-criteria decision making method in Wafangdian, China. Energy 2020 , 207 , 118222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aldrin Wiguna, K.; Sarno, R.; Ariyani, N.F. Optimization Solar Farm site selection using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Fuzzy AHP and PROMETHEE: Case study in Bali. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Information & Communication Technology and Systems (ICTS), Surabaya, Indonesia, 12 October 2016; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 237–243. [ Google Scholar ]
• Noorollahi, Y.; Ghenaatpisheh Senani, A.; Fadaei, A.; Simaee, M.; Moltames, R. A framework for GIS-based site selection and technical potential evaluation of PV solar farm using Fuzzy-Boolean logic and AHP multi-criteria decision-making approach. Renew. Energy 2022 , 186 , 89–104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barros, E.G.D.; Van Aken, B.B.; Burgers, A.R.; Slooff-Hoek, L.H.; Fonseca, R.M. Multi-Objective optimization of solar park design under climatic uncertainty. Sol. Energy 2022 , 231 , 958–969. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Breen, M.; Upton, J.; Murphy, M.D. Photovoltaic systems on dairy farms: Financial and renewable multi-objective optimization (FARMOO) analysis. Appl. Energy 2020 , 278 , 115534. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sengupra, R.N.; Gupta, A.; Dutta, J. Decision Sciences. Theory and Practice ; Taylor & Francus Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sicuaio, T.; Zhao, P.; Pilesjo, P.; Shindyapin, A.; Mansourian, A. Sustainable and Resilient Land Use Planning: A Multi-Objective Optimization Approach. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2024 , 13 , 99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Giagkiozis, I.; Fleming, P.J. Methods for multi-objective optimization: An analysis. Inf. Sci. 2015 , 293 , 338–350. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Klamroth, K.; Lacour, R.; Vanderpooten, D. On the representation of the search region in multi-objective optimization. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2015 , 245 , 767–778. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yousefi, H.; Hafeznia, H.; Yousefi-Sahzabi, A. Spatial Site Selection for Solar Power Plants Using a GIS-Based Boolean-Fuzzy Logic Model: A Case Study of Markazi Province, Iran. Energies 2018 , 11 , 1648. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uyan, M. GIS-based solar farms site selection using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in Karapinar region, Konya/Turkey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013 , 28 , 11–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chiarani, E.; Antunes, A.F.B.; Drago, D.; Oening, A.P.; Paschoalotto, L.A.C. Optimal Site Selection Using Geographical Information System (GIS) Based Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA): A Case Study To Concentrated Solar Power Plants (CSP) In Brazil. Anu. Inst. Geociênc. 2023 , 46 , 48188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Colak, H.E.; Memisoglu, T.; Gercek, Y. Optimal site selection for solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants using GIS and AHP: A case study of Malatya Province, Turkey. Renew. Energy 2020 , 149 , 565–576. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uyan, M. Optimal site selection for solar power plants using multi-criteria evaluation: A case study from the Ayranci region in Karaman, Turkey. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2017 , 19 , 2231–2244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kazemi, R.; Moeini-Aghtaie, M.; Omidvar, H.; Sharifi, A.; Javadian, M. Multi-objective optimization for solar farm site selection considering environmental, social, and economic aspects. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 243 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blanc, P.; Espinar, B.; Geuder, N.; Gueymard, C.; Meyer, R.; Pitz-Paal, R.; Reinhardt, B.; Renné, D.; Sengupta, M.; Wald, L.; et al. Direct normal irradiance related definitions and applications: The circumsolar issue. Sol. Energy 2014 , 110 , 561–577. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karra, K.; Kontgis, C.; Statman-Weil, Z.; Mazzariello, J.C.; Mathis, M.; Brumby, S.P. Global land use/land cover with Sentinel 2 and deep learning. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS, Brussels, Belgium, 11–16 July 2021; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 4704–4707. [ Google Scholar ]
• OpenStreetMap Contributors Planet Dump. 2023. Available online: https://planet.osm.org (accessed on 12 December 2023).
• Torres-Sibille, A.D.C.; Cloquell-Ballester, V.-A.; Cloquell-Ballester, V.-A.; Artacho Ramírez, M.Á. Aesthetic impact assessment of solar power plants: An objective and a subjective approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009 , 13 , 986–999. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, Q.; Liu, X. Analysis of errors of derived slope and aspect related to DEM data properties. Comput. Geosci. 2004 , 30 , 369–378. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hillier, F.S.; Frederick, S. Hillier. 2021. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1287/0da64ca6-e17a-473d-b876-2df3a5ce2760 (accessed on 12 June 2023).
• Roque, P.M.J.; Chowdhury, S.P.D.; Huan, Z. Improvement of Stand-Alone Solar PV Systems in the Maputo Region by Adapting Necessary Parameters. Energies 2021 , 14 , 4357. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tafula, J.E.; Justo, C.D.; Moura, P.; Mendes, J.; Soares, A. Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach for Optimum Site Selection for Off-Grid Solar Photovoltaic Microgrids in Mozambique. Energies 2023 , 16 , 2894. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blank, J.; Deb, K. Pymoo: Multi-Objective Optimization in Python. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 89497–89509. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Izzo, D. Pygmo and Pykep: Open Source Tools for Massively Parallel Optimization in Astrodynamics (The Case of Interplanetary Trajectory Optimization). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Astrodynamics Tools and Techniques—ICATT 2012, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 29 May–1 June 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tettelaar, K. Towards Multi-objective Bayesian Global Optimization for Space Missions. Bachelor’s Thesis, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands, August 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Censor, Y. Pareto optimality in multiobjective problems. Appl. Math. Optim. 1977 , 4 , 41–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stiglitz, J.E. Pareto Optimality and Competition. J. Finance 1981 , 36 , 235–251. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tan, Y.S.; Fraser, N.M. The modified star graph and the petal diagram: Two new visual aids for discrete alternative multicriteria decision making. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 1998 , 7 , 20–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bravi, A.; Longtin, A.; Seely, A.J. Review and classification of variability analysis techniques with clinical applications. Biomed. Eng. OnLine 2011 , 10 , 90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Laumanns, M.; Thiele, L.; Deb, K.; Zitzler, E. Combining Convergence and Diversity in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization. Evol. Comput. 2002 , 10 , 263–282. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blank, J.; Deb, K. A Running Performance Metric and Termination Criterion for Evaluating Evolutionary Multi- and Many-objective Optimization Algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Glasgow, UK, 19–24 July 2020; IEEE: New Yor, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zitzler, E.; Brockhoff, D.; Thiele, L. The Hypervolume Indicator Revisited: On the Design of Pareto-compliant Indicators via Weighted Integration. In Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization ; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Obayashi, S., Deb, K., Poloni, C., Hiroyasu, T., Murata, T., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; Volume 4403, pp. 862–876. ISBN 978-3-540-70927-5. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Sicuaio, T.; Zhao, P.; Pilesjö, P.; Shindyapin, A.; Mansourian, A. A Multi-Objective Optimization Approach for Solar Farm Site Selection: Case Study in Maputo, Mozambique. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7333. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177333

Sicuaio T, Zhao P, Pilesjö P, Shindyapin A, Mansourian A. A Multi-Objective Optimization Approach for Solar Farm Site Selection: Case Study in Maputo, Mozambique. Sustainability . 2024; 16(17):7333. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177333

Sicuaio, Tomé, Pengxiang Zhao, Petter Pilesjö, Andrey Shindyapin, and Ali Mansourian. 2024. "A Multi-Objective Optimization Approach for Solar Farm Site Selection: Case Study in Maputo, Mozambique" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7333. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177333

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Skip to main content
• Skip to search
• Skip to footer

Products and Services

Partner Incentives

Maximize your profitability with one-time enrollment in Cisco incentives.

Are you a Cisco partner?

Preprint  

• Preprint egusphere-2024-2511

Measuring varve thickness using µCT: a comparison with thin section

Abstract. X-ray micro-computed tomography (μCT) scans were performed on four varved sediment cores collected in Grand Lake (Labrador) and previously studied with thin sections. These scans allowed to investigate the possibility of using µCT as a substitute for thin sections to carry out counts and thickness measurements of varved sediments. Comparing varve counts of these two methods, μCT counts are slightly higher than the ones made with thin sections. The difference in counts suggests that the petrographic study and a SEM analysis of a thin section remain necessary for determining the varve character of the laminae. Yet, µCT allows measurements in multiple directions, improving the robustness of the counts and allowing avoiding the manufacturing of continuous thin sections along sediment sequence.

As to the thickness measurement, the µCT analyses were made in two perpendicular directions. Not surprisingly, measurements made on the same cutting plane as the thin section are quite similar to the ones made on the latter. However, there are significant differences with measurements made on the perpendicular plane. This highlights the need to perform varve thickness measurements in at least two perpendicular directions for better estimates of varved sediment thicknesses. In addition, the study illustrates that µCT is an effective way to select the least deformed zones with parallel varves to carry out the best possible thickness measurements.

• Preprint (PDF, 3656 KB)
• Preprint (3656 KB)
• Metadata XML

Status : open (until 03 Oct 2024)

Report abuse

Please provide a reason why you see this comment as being abusive. You might include your name and email but you can also stay anonymous.

Please provide a reason why you see this comment as being abusive.

Please confirm reCaptcha.

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Marie-Eugénie Meusseunan Pascale Jamba

Pierre francus, antoine gagnon-poiré, guillaume st-onge.