Effects of AI-Driven Written Direct and Indirect Feedback on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners' Writing Complexity

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Department of English, ShK.C., Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran

Abstract

This study examined the impact of AI-driven feedback on the writing complexity of Iranian intermediate EFL learners using a quasi-experimental design. Through convenience sampling, 100 participants (male and female, aged 18-25) from two language institutes in Tehran were divided into four groups: two experimental groups receiving direct and indirect feedback from AI ChatGPT, and two control groups receiving the same feedback types from their teacher. Participants completed a pre-test, ten writing tasks over 14 weeks, and a post-test. Results, analyzed via descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA, indicated notable improvements in writing complexity across all groups. The AI direct feedback group showed the highest improvement, with a mean difference of 5.24 (p < 0.05), followed by the teacher direct feedback group, which also demonstrated significant gains. The AI indirect feedback group exhibited moderate progress, while the teacher indirect feedback group showed the least improvement. Analysis of syntactic measures revealed that AI feedback, particularly direct feedback, effectively enhanced sentence structures and encouraged the use of more sophisticated vocabulary. These findings highlight AI-driven feedback’s potential to enhance EFL learners’ writing complexity, with direct feedback yielding the greatest benefits.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abdi Tabari, M., & Wang, Y. (2022). Assessing linguistic complexity features in L2 writing: Understanding effects of topic familiarity and strategic planning within the realm of task readiness. Assessing Writing, 52, 100605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100605.
Azennoud, A. (2024). Enhancing Writing Accuracy and Complexity through AI-Assisted Tools among Moroccan EFL University Learners. International Journal of Linguistics and Translation Studies, 5(4), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlts.v5i4.529
Bagheri Nevisi, R., & Arab, N. (2023). Computer-generated vs. direct written corrective feedback and Iranian EFL students' syntactic accuracy and complexity. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly, 42(2), 111–148. https://doi.org/10.22099/tesl.2023.46955.3177
 Bai, L., & Hu, G. (2016). In the face of fallible AWE feedback: How do students respond? Educational Psychology, 37(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1223275.
Barrot, J., & Gabinete, M. K. (2021). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in the argumentative writing of ESL and EFL learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59(2), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2017-0012.
Baskara, F. R. (2023). Integrating ChatGPT into EFL writing instruction: Benefits and challenges. International Journal of Education and Learning, 5(1), 44-55. https://doi.org/10.31763/ijele.v5i1.858
Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2018). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818770921.
Bonilla Lopez, M., Van Steendam, E., Speelman, D., & Buyse, K. (2018). The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68(3), 813–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12295.
Dikli, S., & Bleyle, S. (2014). Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback? Assessing Writing, 22, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.006.
Eckstein, G., & Bell, L. (2021). Dynamic written corrective feedback in first-year composition: Accuracy and lexical and syntactic complexity. RELC Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211061624
Eckstein, G., Sims, M., & Rohm, L. (2020). Dynamic written corrective feedback among graduate students: The effects of feedback timing. TESL Canada Journal, 37(2), 78–102. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v37i2.1339
El Ebyary, K., & Windeatt, S. (2010). The impact of computer-based feedback on students’ written work. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119231.
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445-463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375367
Fazilatfar, A. M., Fallah, N., Hamavandi, M., & Rostamian, M. (2014). The effect of unfocused written corrective feedback on syntactic and lexical complexity of L2 writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 482–488. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.443
Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006
Hamano-bunce, D. (2022). The effects of direct written corrective feedback and comparator texts on the complexity and accuracy of revisions and new pieces of writing. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168822 1127643
Hartshorn, K. J., & Evans, N. W. (2015). The effects of dynamic written corrective feedback: A 30-week study. Journal of Response to Writing, 1(2), 6–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.04.012
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84–109. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.213781
Huang, S., & Renandya, W. A. (2018). Exploring the integration of automated feedback among lower-proficiency EFL learners. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2018.1471083
Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Lan- guage Writing, 17(3), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International journal of corpus linguistics, 15(4), 474-496. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
Mirshekaran, R., Namaziandost, E., & Nazari, M. (2018). The effects of topic interest and L2 proficiency on writing skill among Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(6), 1270-1276. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0906.16
McMartin-Miller, C. (2014). How much feedback is enough? Instructor practices and student attitudes toward error treat- ment in second language writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.003
Nicolas-Conesa, F., Manchon, R. M., & Cerezo, L. (2019). The effect of unfocused direct and indirect written corrective feed- back on rewritten texts and new texts: Looking into feedback for accuracy and feedback for acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 848–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12592
Niu, R., Shan, P., & You, X. (2021). Complementation of multiple sources of feedback in EFL learners’ writing. Assessing Writing, 49(January), 100549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100549
O’Neill, R., & Russell, A. (2019). Stop! grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Ginger. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3795
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college‐level L2 writing. Applied linguistics, 24(4), 492-518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492
Pearson, W. S. (2022). Response to written commentary in preparation for high-stakes second language writing assessment. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00145-6
Polio, C. (2012a). How to research second language writing. In A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 139–157). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444347340
Polio, C. (2012b). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004
Polio, C., & Yoon, H. J. (2018). The reliability and validity of automated tools for examining variation in syntactic complexity across genres. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 165-188. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12200
Qassemzadeh, A., & Soleimani, H. (2016). The impact of feedback provision by Ginger software and teachers on learning passive structures by Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(9), 1884–1894. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0609.23
Ranalli, J. (2018). Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 653–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2015). Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing? System, 49, 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.01.006
Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (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
Thi, N. K., & Nikolov, M. (2021). How teacher and grammarly feedback complement one another in Myanmar EFL students’ writing. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31(6), 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00625-2
Thi, N. K., & Nikolov, M. (2023). A systematic review of automated feedback in EFL writing: Advantages, limitations, and implications for practice. Asian Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00182-1.
Thi, N. K., Nikolov, M., & Simon, K. (2022). Higher-proficiency students’ engagement with and uptake of teacher and Gram- marly feedback in an EFL writing course. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17501229.2022.2122476
Thi, N., & Nikolov, M. (2023). Effects of teacher, automated, and combined feedback on syntactic complexity in EFL students' writing. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8(6). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-023-00180-x
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing: Effectiveness of comprehensive CF. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9922.2011. 00674.x
Xu, J., & Zhang, S. (2021). Understanding AWE feedback and English writing of learners with different proficiency levels in an EFL classroom: a sociocultural perspective. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40299-021-00577-7
Zhang, L. J., & Cheng, X. (2021). Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 54, 101043. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101043
Zhang, T. (2021). The effect of highly focused versus mid-focused written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge development. System, 99, 102493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102493

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics