The effect of artificial intelligence mediated feedback on english language learners' writing ability
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62452/g6023m93Keywords:
Ai-mediated feedback, writing ability, EFL learners, perceptions, accuracy, coherenceAbstract
This study investigated the impact of AI-mediated feedback on the writing skills of Iranian intermediate EFL learners, with a focus on accuracy, coherence, and cohesion, as well as learners’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges associated with AI in the writing process. Sixty female EFL learners, aged 15 to 20, were purposively selected from a private language institute and divided into two groups: one receiving AI-mediated feedback via the Poe Application, and the other receiving traditional teacher feedback. Writing proficiency was assessed using IELTS Writing Task 2, administered as both pre- and post-tests. The results indicated that learners who received AI-mediated feedback demonstrated significant improvements in grammatical accuracy, coherence, and cohesion compared to those who received traditional feedback. Qualitative data, collected through semi-structured interviews with a subset of the experimental group, revealed that learners appreciated the immediacy, personalization, and accessibility of AI feedback, which enhanced their motivation and supported autonomous learning. However, participants also expressed concerns regarding the lack of human connection, potential over-reliance on AI, and the limitations of AI in understanding contextual nuances. These findings suggest that while AI-mediated feedback is effective in improving key aspects of EFL writing, it is most beneficial when integrated with human guidance.
Downloads
References
Aminovna, B. D. (2022). Importance of coherence and cohesion in writing. Eurasian Research Bulletin, 4, 83–89. https://geniusjournals.org/index.php/erb/article/view/431
Bahaziq, A. (2016). Cohesive devices in written discourse: A discourse analysis of a student’s essay writing. English Language Teaching, 9(7), 112–112. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n7p112
Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using automated written corrective feedback in the writing classrooms: Effects on L2 writing accuracy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(4), 584–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1936071
Borna, P., Mohammadi, R., & Karimi Nia, R. (2024). Investigating the effect of AI writing assistance tools on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' writing performance: A comparative study of ProWritingAid and Grammarly. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 12(3), 478–504. https://doi.org/10.30486/RELP.2024.897162
Chávez-Cárdenas, M. d. C., Fernández-Marín, M. Á., & Lamí-Rodríguez del Rey, L. E. (2025). Web educativa e inteligencia artificial: Transformando el aprendizaje contemporáneo. Sophia Editions.
Chen, X., Xie, H., Zou, D., & Hwang, G.-J. (2020). Application and theory gaps during the rise of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, Article 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100002
Diebold, G. (2023). Higher education will have to adapt to generative AI—And that’s a good thing. Center for Data Innovation. https://datainnovation.org/2023/01/higher-education-will-have-to-adapt-to-generative-ai-and-thats-a-good-thing/
Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. EPILOGUE. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263109990544
Fathi, J., & Rahimi, M. (2024). Utilising artificial intelligence-enhanced writing mediation to develop academic writing skills in EFL learners: A qualitative study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2374772
Ghorbandordinejad, F., & Kenshinbay, T. (2024). Exploring AI-driven adaptive feedback in the second language writing skills prompt. AI Technology in Language Teaching, 2(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.59652/jetm.v2i3.264
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
Jafarian, K., Soori, F., & Kafipour, K. (2012). The effect of computer assisted language learning (CALL) on EFL high school students' writing achievement. European Journal of Social Sciences, 27(2), 138–148.
Jasim, M. Y., Musa, Z. H., Asim, Z. A., & Salman, A. R. (2024). Developing EFL writing with AI: Balancing benefits and challenges. Technology Assisted Language Education, 2(2), 80-93. https://doi.org/10.22126/TALE.2024.10953.1052
Jawas, U. (2019). Writing anxiety among Indonesian EFL students: Factors and strategies. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 733–746. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1230040.pdf
Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 524–536. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444819000247
León-González, J. L., & Pire-Rojas, A. (Comp). (2025). Investigación, neurociencia e inteligencia artificial: Hacia una formación universitaria integral. Sophia Editions.
Marzuki, W., Rusdin, D., Darwin, W., & Indrawati, I. (2023). The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students' writing: EFL teachers' perspective. Cogent Education, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2236469
Sanosi, A. B. (2022). The impact of automated written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ academic writing accuracy. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 10(2), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP2202301S
Wang, D. (2024). Teacher-versus AI-generated (POE application) corrective feedback and language learners’ writing anxiety, complexity, fluency, and accuracy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 25(3), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7646
Wang, Z., & Han, F. (2022). The effects of teacher feedback and automated feedback on cognitive and psychological aspects of foreign language writing: A mixed-methods research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 909802. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.909802
Weigle, R. (2002). Focus on the global essay: A schematic approach to improving TOEFL writing. Cambridge University Press.
Zeevy-Solovey, O. (2024). Comparing peer, ChatGPT, and teacher corrective feedback in EFL writing: Students’ perceptions and preferences. Technology in Language Teaching & Learning, 6(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.29140/tltl.v6n3.1482
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Zeinab Elghani, Nafiseh Asadzadeh-Maleki (Autor/a)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in Revista Metropolitana de Ciencias Aplicadas (REMCA), agree to the following terms:
1. Copyright
Authors retain unrestricted copyright to their work. Authors grant the journal the right of first publication. To this end, they assign the journal non-exclusive exploitation rights (reproduction, distribution, public communication, and transformation). Authors may enter into additional agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the journal, provided that acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal is given.
© The authors.
2. License
The articles are published in the journal under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). The terms can be found at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en
This license allows:
- Sharing: Copying and redistributing the material in any medium or format.
- Adapting: Remixing, transforming, and building upon the material.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if any changes were made. You may do this in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses or sponsors your use.
- NonCommercial: You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
- ShareAlike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your creation under the same license as the original work.
There are no additional restrictions. You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
