Impact of corrective metalinguistic written feedback given through ChatGPT on EFL pre-service teachers’ academic writing skills
Resumen
This study investigates the impact of ChatGPT-generated corrective metalinguistic written feedback on the academic writing performance of EFL undergraduate pre-service teachers. We implemented a true experimental pretest-posttest control group design with 14 participants randomly allocated to an experimental group (ChatGPT feedback) and a control group (teacher feedback). In addition, an analytic rubric that rated Grammar and Accuracy, Vocabulary Range and Appropriacy, Cohesion and Coherence, Task Achievement, Organization’ perception questionnaires and open-ended replies complemented the quantitative data to evaluate writing performance. Descriptive data indicated enhancement in both groups, with the experimental exhibiting superior mean gain scores (M = 7.29) compared to the control group (M = 6.29). Paired-samples t-tests demonstrated statistically significant improvements from pre-test to post-test in both groups (p < .001). Category-level analysis indicated stronger gains for the experimental group in Task Achievement, Organization, Grammar, and Accuracy. Perception results indicated more positive assessments of clarity and actionability in the experimental group (e.g., 71% strongly concurred that the feedback was clear, and comprehensible). Findings suggest that ChatGPT-mediated metalinguistic feedback can effectively enhance academic writing growth and may function as an auxiliary feedback resource in EFL teacher education settings.
Descargas
Citas
Aksu, H. H. (2009). Questionnaires and interviews in educational researches. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13(1), 201–216.
Alarcon, J. B., & Morales, K. N. S. (2011). Grammatical cohesion in students’ argumentative essay. Journal of English and Literature, 2(5), 114–127.
Andrade, H. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27–30. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.1.27-31
Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 57, 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400
Brookhart, S. M., & Chen, F. (2015). The quality and effectiveness of descriptive rubrics. Educational Review, 67(3), 343–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2014.929565
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton Mifflin.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
Ferris, D. R. (2020). Second language writing and written corrective feedback. Cambridge University Press
Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press.
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., ... & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Lammers, W. J., & Badia, P. (2011). Using experimental control to reduce extraneous variables [PDF document]. University of Central Arkansas. https://uca.edu
Li, Z., & Li, M. (2023). The comparative impact of automated and teacher feedback on EFL students’ revision performance. System, 113, 102996.
Lin, C. (2023). Exploring the role of ChatGPT in EFL academic writing: Benefits, challenges, and pedagogical implications. Journal of Language and Education Research, 19(3), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1234/jler.2023.19.3.45
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365
Panjaitan, R. L. (2018). Choosing appropriate independent variable in educational experimental research: Some errors debunked. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 983, 012133. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/983/1/012133
Poláková, P., & Ivenz, P. (2024). The impact of ChatGPT feedback on the development of EFL students’ writing skills. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2410101. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2410101
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2015). The incidental acquisition of plural–s by Japanese children in comprehension-based and production-based lessons. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(4), 591–626. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000820
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.
Wingate, U. (2012). Academic literacy and student diversity: The case for inclusive practice. Multilingual Matters.
Yi, U., Baker-Smemoe, W., & Evans, N. W. (2014). The rhetoric revision log. Writing & Pedagogy, 6(2), 337–361. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v6i2.337
Zou, D., Huang, Y., & Xie, H. (2023b). Generative artificial intelligence for language learning: Potentials and challenges. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(5), 550–573.
Zou, D., Huang, Y., Ma, W. W., & Xie, H. (2023a). Generative AI for education: Applications, opportunities, and challenges. Education and Information Technologies, 28(12), 13149–13172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11974-6
Derechos de autor 2026 Stewart Smith Viáfara Pérez , Daniela Sandoval Lasso
Esta obra está bajo licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0.
.png)
.png)
1.png)
