Corrective feedback plays a critical role in enhancing writing skills among English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, but large class sizes often hinder the provision of personalized feedback. Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT have emerged as promising solutions that offer immediate and individualized feedback for writing. This study examined the effects of ChatGPT-generated feedback in comparison to teacher-generated feedback on Saudi EFL students’ writing skills and perception at the university level. A mixed-method approach was employed to ensure comprehensive data collection and analyses. Using the pretest-posttest control group design, 102 participants were assigned to an experimental group, which received ChatGPT-generated feedback, and a control group, which received teacher-generated feedback. Pretests, posttests, and a perception survey were used to collect the data. ANCOVA, with pretest scores as a covariate, and content analysis of perception data were conducted. The results indicated no statistically significant differences in posttest scores between the experimental group and the control group, suggesting that ChatGPT-generated feedback was as effective as teacher-generated feedback. The perception survey revealed an overall positive attitude toward the use of ChatGPT for academic writing. The study provides empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of generative AI tools in academic writing contexts.
AhmedM. (2023). ChatGPT and the EFL classroom: Supplement or substitute in Saudi Arabia’s eastern region. Information Sciences Letters, 12(7), 2727–2734. https://doi.org/10.18576/isl/120704
2.
AlgaraadyJ.MahyoobM. (2023). ChatGPT’s capabilities in spotting and analyzing writing errors experienced by EFL learners. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL, (9), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/call9.1
BitchenerJ.FerrisD. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing: Routledge.
5.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
6.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016
7.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
8.
BitchenerJ.StorchN. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.
9.
BonnerE.LegeR.FrazierE. (2023). Large language model-based artificial intelligence in the language classroom: Practical ideas for teaching. Teaching English with Technology, 2023(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.56297/Bkam1691/Wieo1749
10.
BoudouaiaA.MouasS.KouiderB. (2024). A study on ChatGPT-4 as an innovative approach to enhancing English as a foreign language writing learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(6), 1509–1537. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241247465
11.
ChanC.HuW. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. Int J Educ Technol High Educ, 20(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
12.
CreswellJ. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.): Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
13.
CreswellJ. (2014). The selection of a research approach. In CreswellJ. (Ed.), Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (pp. 3–23). Sage.
14.
EkeD. (2023). ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI: Threat to academic integrity?Journal of Responsible Technology, 13, Article 100060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100060
15.
EllisN. C.Simpson VlachR. I. T. A.MaynardC. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. Tesol Quarterly, 42(3), 375–396. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x
16.
FerrisD. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
17.
FerrisD. (2008). Students must learn to correct all their writing errors. In ReidJ. (Ed.), Writing myths: Applying Second language research to classroom teaching (pp. 90–114): University of Michigan Press.
18.
FerrisD. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.): University of Michigan Press.
19.
FosnotC. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In FosnotC. T. (Ed.), In constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (pp. 8–33): Teachers’ College Press.
20.
FuQ. K.ZouD.XieH.ChengG. (2022). A review of AWE feedback: Types, learning outcomes, and implications. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(1–2), 179–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2033787
21.
GuoK.WangD. (2023). To resist it or to embrace it? Examining ChatGPT’s potential to support teacher feedback in EFL writing. Education and Information Technologies, 29(7), 8435–8463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0
22.
HanJ.YooH.KimY.MyungJ.KimM.LimH.KimJ.LeeT.HongH.AhnS.OhA. (2023). Recipe: How to integrate ChatGPT into EFL writing education. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM conference on learning @ scale (pp. 416–420). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3573051.3596200
KimS.ShimJ.ShimJ. (2023). A study on the utilization of OpenAI ChatGPT as a second language learning tool. Journal of Multimedia Information System, 10(1), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.33851/JMIS.2023.10.1.79
25.
LantolfJ.ThorneS. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development: Oxford University Press.
26.
LimW.GunasekaraA.PallantJ.PallantJ.PechenkinaE. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. International Journal of Management in Education, 21(2), Article 100790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790
27.
LockS. (2022, December 6). What is AI chatbot phenomenon ChatGPT and could it replace humans. The Guardian. https://rb.gy/nisk56
28.
MahapatraS. (2024). Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods intervention study. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9
29.
MasoudiH. (2024). Effectiveness of ChatGPT in improving English writing proficiency among Non-native English speakers. International Journal of Educational Sciences and Arts, 3(4), 62–84. https://doi.org/10.59992/IJESA.2024.v3n4p2
30.
MathurM.MahapatraS. (2022). Impact of ePortfolio assessment as an instructional strategy on students’ academic speaking skills: An experimental study. CALL-EJ, 23(3), 1–23.
31.
MohsenM. A. (2022). Computer-mediated corrective feedback to improve L2 writing skills: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(5), 1253–1276. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211064066
PeresR.SchreierM.SchweidelD.SorescuA. (2023). On ChatGPT and beyond: How generative artificial intelligence may affect research, teaching, and practice. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 40(2), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2023.03.001
34.
SheenY. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. Tesol Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
35.
SheenY.WrightD.MoldawaA. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
36.
ShintaniN.EllisR. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
37.
ShintaniN.EllisR.SuzukiW. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language and learning, 64(1), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029
38.
SteissJ.TateT.GrahamS.CruzJ.HebertM.WangJ.MoonY.TsengW.WarschauerM.OlsonC. B. (2024). Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students’ writing. Learning and Instruction, 91, Article 101894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894
39.
StevensonM.PhakitiA. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007
40.
TavakolM.DennickR. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
von GlasersfeldE. (1996). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In FosnotC. T. (Ed.), In Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (pp. 3–7): Teachers’ College Press.
43.
WilsonJ.AndradaG. N. (2016). Using automated feedback to improve writing quality: Opportunities and challenges. In RosenY.FerraraS.MosharrafM. (Eds.), Handbook of research on technology tools for real-world skill development (pp. 678–703): IGI Global.
44.
WilsonJ.CzikA. (2016). Automated essay evaluation software in English Language Arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality. Computers & Education, 100, 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.004
45.
XiaoY.ZhiY. (2023). An exploratory study of EFL learners’ use of ChatGPT for language learning tasks: Experience and perceptions. Language, 8(3), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030212
46.
YusufA.PervinN.Román-GonzálezM. (2024). Generative AI and the future of higher education: A threat to academic integrity or reformation? Evidence from multicultural perspectives. Int J Educ Technol High Educ, 21(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00453-6
47.
ZhaiN.MaX. (2023). The effectiveness of automated writing evaluation on writing quality: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(4), 875–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221127300
