Chatbot as a Feedback Partner: An Applied Linguistics Study on AI-Mediated Corrective Feedback in Enhancing EFL Learners' Writing Accuracy and Revision Behavior
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26877/jettle.v2i2.4184Keywords:
AI Chatbot, Corrective Feedback, Writing Accuracy, Revision Behavior, EFL LearnersAbstract
This study investigates the role of AI chatbot-generated corrective feedback in enhancing the writing accuracy and revision behavior of EFL undergraduate learners. Employing a descriptive qualitative design grounded in Applied Linguistics, the research involved undergraduate students who exhibited persistent grammatical errors, limited revision strategies, and infrequent access to individualized writing feedback. Data were gathered through multiple drafts of argumentative paragraphs, chatbot-generated feedback logs, and semi-structured interviews conducted across several feedback-revision cycles. The findings indicate substantial improvement across four indicators: grammatical accuracy, depth of revision, error noticing, and learner autonomy in the editing process. Learners progressively shifted from surface-level corrections, such as spelling and punctuation, toward meaning-level revisions involving clause structure, cohesion, and argument development. The chatbot's explicit, metalinguistic feedback encouraged learners to notice recurring error patterns and apply self-correction in subsequent drafts. Learners' dependence on external correction gradually decreased as their confidence in self-editing increased. These findings support corrective feedback theory, the noticing hypothesis, and computer-mediated writing feedback frameworks, which emphasize that written accuracy develops through repeated, learner-engaged feedback cycles. This study contributes a new perspective by positioning the AI chatbot not as an automatic error-correction tool, but as an interactive feedback partner that scaffolds learners' revision competence. Chatbot-mediated feedback can therefore serve as a practical alternative for sustained writing improvement in contexts where individualized teacher feedback is limited.
References
[1] Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 2007;77:81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
[2] Hyland K, Hyland F. Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching 2006;39:83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399.
[3] Stevenson M, Phakiti A. The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing 2014;19:51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007.
[4] Kohnke L, Moorhouse BL, Zou D. ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal 2023;54:537–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231162868.
[5] Kasneci E, Sessler K, Küchemann S, Bannert M, Dementieva D, Fischer F, et al. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences 2023;103:102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274.
[6] Truscott J. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning 1996;46:327–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x.
[7] Sommers N. Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication 1980;31:378–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/356588.
[8] Faigley L, Witte S. Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication 1981;32:400–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/356602.
[9] Crompton H, Edmett A, Ichaporia N, Burke D. AI and English language teaching: Affordances and challenges. British Journal of Educational Technology 2024;55:2503–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13460.
[10] Barrot JS. Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing 2023;57:100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745.
[11] Yan D. Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation. Education and Information Technologies 2023;28:13943–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4.
[12] Ellis R. Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal 2009;1:3–18.
[13] Ferris DR. Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In: Hyland K, Hyland F, editors. Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press; 2006, p. 81–104.
[14] Bitchener J, Knoch U. The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research 2008;12:409–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924.
[15] Schmidt RW. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 1990;11:129–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129.
[16] Warschauer M, Ware P. Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research 2006;10:157–80. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr190oa.
[17] Huberman AM, Miles MB. The qualitative researcher’s companion. SAGE; 2002.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muh Zaky Rahmat Dany.S
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
