The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
To resist it or to embrace it? Examining ChatGPT’s potential to support teacher feedback in EFL writing
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The second is the displacement of teacher expertise, and thus the suggestion in literature is for complementary configurations where AI is used to complement rather than replace teacher feedback [17].”
In the citing paper
“First, with the aid of this technology, students may be able to complete tasks for which they lack the necessary skills, such as creating photographs and getting some ideas from other disciplines (Guo & Wang, 2023).”
From A Scoping Review on How Generative Artificial Intelligence Transforms Assessment in Higher Education (2024) · cites this paper as Guo & Wang, 2023
In the citing paper
“AI has the potential to lessen individual biases in grading procedures, including essays, project proposals, and theses (Guo & Wang, 2023).”
From A Scoping Review on How Generative Artificial Intelligence Transforms Assessment in Higher Education (2024) · cites this paper as Guo & Wang, 2023
In the citing paper
“Various assignment types, including essays and computer coding, are impacted differently by GenAI (Fergus et al., 2023; Greiner et al., 2023; Guo & Wang, 2023; Naidu & Sevnarayan, 2023; Ouh et al., 2023; Smolansky et al., 2023).”
From A Scoping Review on How Generative Artificial Intelligence Transforms Assessment in Higher Education (2024) · cites this paper as Guo & Wang, 2023
In the citing paper
“This finding can be attributed to the specific and actionable nature of AI-generated feedback, which often focused on surface-level issues such as grammar, spelling, and vocabulary.”
From Enhancing EFL Writing Revision Practices: The Impact of AI- and Teacher-Generated Feedback and Their Sequences (2025) · cites this paper as Guo & Wang, 2024
In the citing paper
“In contrast, teacher-generated feedback is typically concise, formative, and context-sensitive, focusing on critical areas for improvement in a more targeted manner.”
From Enhancing EFL Writing Revision Practices: The Impact of AI- and Teacher-Generated Feedback and Their Sequences (2025) · cites this paper as Guo and Wang (2024)
In the citing paper
“Research by Guo and Wang (2024) and Yoon et al. (2023) highlights that AI-generated feedback tends to be lengthier and more overwhelming, often containing redundant or overly generic suggestions.”
From Enhancing EFL Writing Revision Practices: The Impact of AI- and Teacher-Generated Feedback and Their Sequences (2025) · cites this paper as Guo and Wang (2024)
In the citing paper
“In contrast, teacher-generated feedback tended to focus selectively on content-specific and language-specific aspects, with a preference for indirect feedback types, such as 'informative' or 'querying' remarks.”
From Enhancing EFL Writing Revision Practices: The Impact of AI- and Teacher-Generated Feedback and Their Sequences (2025) · cites this paper as Guo and Wang (2024)
In the citing paper
“Their findings revealed that while AI-generated feedback was greater in volume and primarily direct, it was evenly distributed across content, language, and organizational issues.”
From Enhancing EFL Writing Revision Practices: The Impact of AI- and Teacher-Generated Feedback and Their Sequences (2025) · cites this paper as Guo and Wang (2024)
In the citing paper
“In contrast, AI-generated feedback demonstrates a more consistent distribution across local and global issues (Guo & Wang, 2024) as well as a high agreement with instructors (Dai et al., 2023)”
From Enhancing EFL Writing Revision Practices: The Impact of AI- and Teacher-Generated Feedback and Their Sequences (2025) · cites this paper as Guo & Wang, 2024
In the citing paper
“In contrast, teacher-generated feedback offers more contextualized, selective insights tailored to both content-specific and language-specific aspects of students' work (Guo & Wang, 2024; Yoon et al., 2023).”
From Enhancing EFL Writing Revision Practices: The Impact of AI- and Teacher-Generated Feedback and Their Sequences (2025) · cites this paper as Guo & Wang, 2024
In the citing paper
“According to the literature, AI-generated feedback provides a greater volume of direct, concise, and formative suggestions, often focused on surface-level issues like grammar and vocabulary.”
From Enhancing EFL Writing Revision Practices: The Impact of AI- and Teacher-Generated Feedback and Their Sequences (2025) · cites this paper as Guo & Wang, 2024
In the citing paper
“The slight advantage of the AIGFTGF order can be attributed to the nature of AI-generated feedback, which is particularly effective at addressing surface-level issues, such as grammar, vocabulary, and basic organization (Guo & Wang, 2024; Lin & Crosthwaite, 2024; Yoon et al., 2023).”
From Enhancing EFL Writing Revision Practices: The Impact of AI- and Teacher-Generated Feedback and Their Sequences (2025) · cites this paper as Guo & Wang, 2024
Citations
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 · Cited by 73,173
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372
Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.02155 · Cited by 4,208
Kung, T. H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., Madriaga, M., Aggabao, R., Diaz-Candido, G., Maningo, J., et al. (2023) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198 · Cited by 4,115
ChatGPT: five priorities for research
van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7 · Cited by 1,842 · cited 1×
“…human-like responses to users’ prompts in a conversational manner, acting as a chatbot, and has become a versatile tool with a range of applications, such as composing poetry, commenting on news, debugging code, writing essays, and summarising literature (Taecharungroj, 2023; van Dis et al., 2023).”
ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806 · cited 2×
“In the realm of education, researchers have been discussing ChatGPT’s implications for teaching and learning (Garcia-Peñalvo, 2023; Rudolph et al., 2023; Zhai, 2022) and exploring its potential use in various subjects, such as journalism and media (Pavlik, 2023), medicine (Gilson et al., 2022; Khan…”
Pavlik, J. V. (2023) · Journalism & Mass Communication Educator · doi:10.1177/10776958221149577 · Cited by 972 · cited 1×
“…ChatGPT’s implications for teaching and learning (Garcia-Peñalvo, 2023; Rudolph et al., 2023; Zhai, 2022) and exploring its potential use in various subjects, such as journalism and media (Pavlik, 2023), medicine (Gilson et al., 2022; Khan et al., 2023), and engineering education (Qadir, 2022).”
Prompt Programming for Large Language Models: Beyond the Few-Shot Paradigm
Reynolds, L., & McDonell, K. (2021) · Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411763.3451760 · Cited by 952 · cited 1×
“In the future, researchers may pay attention to the importance of prompt programming (Reynolds & McDonell, 2021) and attempt diverse inputs and compare their output results to identify effective ways to use ChatGPT for performing the desired task of feedback generation.”
ChatGPT User Experience: Implications for Education
Zhai, X. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4312418 · Cited by 935 · cited 1×
“…realm of education, researchers have been discussing ChatGPT’s implications for teaching and learning (Garcia-Peñalvo, 2023; Rudolph et al., 2023; Zhai, 2022) and exploring its potential use in various subjects, such as journalism and media (Pavlik, 2023), medicine (Gilson et al., 2022; Khan et…”
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Radford, A., Wu, J., Child, R., Luan, D., Amodei, D., Sutskever, I., et al. (2019). Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8), 9. Retrieved 15 January 2023 from https://life-extension.github.io/2020/05/27/GPT%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%88%9D%E6%8E%A2/language-models.pdf
- Stiennon, N., Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Ziegler, D. M., Lowe, R., Voss, C., Radford, A., Amodei, D., & Christiano, P. (2020). Learning to summarize from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.01325. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–451 of 451
Daweli, T. W., & Alkhateeb, A. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7244659
Tian, F., Umar, I. N., & Jamiat, N. (2026) · Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation/Advances in science, technology & innovation · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-14373-0_1
Sysoyev, P. V., Filatov, E. M., Evstigneev, M. N., & Polyakov, O. G. (2026) · Вестник Тамбовского университета. Серия: Гуманитарные науки · doi:10.20310/1810-0201-2026-31-4-815-854
Penny: Transition Network Analysis of Learner-Chatbot Interactions in Scaffolded EFL Writing
Woollaston, S., Flanagan, B., Toyokawa, Y., & Ogata, H. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-34157-0_13
AI-generated versus human-developed assessment tasks in EFL context: insights from TPCK model
Nourashrafi, F. K., Alavinia, P., & Darvishi, S. (2026) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2026.100415 · Cited by 1
Chen, S., & Zhou, T. (2026) · Cogent Arts and Humanities · doi:10.1080/23311983.2026.2716449
Anggoro, K. J., Shitadevi, I. A., & Pratiwi, D. I. (2026) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.103474
Chen, X., Xiong, Y.-H., & Gao, W. (2026) · Computers in The Schools · doi:10.1080/07380569.2026.2712290
A Comparative Study of AI and Human Error Detection Patterns and Feedbacks in IELTS TaskPreprint
Rassooli, A., Salimi, E. A., & Mehri, E. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7352632
Self-regulated writing and follow-up questioning in GenAI-supported after-school EFL practice
Li, Z. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2026.2719851
Teaming with GenAI for multimodal feedback literacy development: A vision for L2 writing teachers
Jiang, L. G., Lee, I., & Yu, S. (2026) · Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.14746/ssllt.53237
Undergraduate L2 writers’ engagement with ChatGPT feedback: A prompt-by-prompt multiple-case studyPreprint
Seo, H., Son, J., & Oh, S.-Y. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7372260
Argumentative Writing and Technology: A Systematic Review (2010-2025)Preprint
Kia, A. J., & Farsani, M. A. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7388022
Gao, H., Kumar, J., Huang, J., Hong, W., Hussain, S., & Sheeran, T. J. (2026) · Ethics & Behavior · doi:10.1080/10508422.2026.2727904
EFL university students’ perceptions of ChatGPT’s impact on English writing content
Nguyen, T. B., & Huynh, T. N. P. (2026) · Proceedings of International Academia · doi:10.65956/procia.2026.147
Lu, D., & Zeng, Y. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2026.2728129
Hasan, M. R., & Sultana, F. (2026) · Indian Journal of Language and Linguistics · doi:10.54392/ijll2633
Alghamdi, L. H., & Alghizzi, T. M. (2026) · Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics · doi:10.3389/frma.2026.1908592
Yang, X., & Liu, X. (2026) · Creative Education · doi:10.4236/ce.2026.179099
Xiao, Q., & Sun, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1892877
Dueraman, B., & Boonsuk, Y. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2026.2734840
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Language Learning and Linguistic Research
Ivanović, Đ., Chukwuma-Nwankwo, I. F., & Francis, R. S. (2026) · Qubahan Political Journal · doi:10.48161/qpj.v5n3a49
Liu, W. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1871951
Lei, Q., Chen, Y., Chen, Y., Zhang, X., & Park, J. (2026) · SN Social Sciences · doi:10.1007/s43545-026-01725-w
Generative AI feedback and creative revision in seventh-grade mathematical problem posing
Serin, M. K., & Kepceoğlu, İ. (2026) · The Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1080/00220671.2026.2735824
Mapping English storytelling in GenAI-enhanced digital multimodal composing: an intervention study
Ranjbaran, F., Zare, J., & Altamimi, A. A. M. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2026.2734550
Lan, Z., & Niu, C. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1866062 · Cited by 1
Fu, R. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1949431
Zhang, H., Muthusamy, P., & Qin, G. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1914690
An, L., & Nguyen, X. H. (2026) · International Journal of Language and Linguistics · doi:10.11648/j.ijll.20261405.12
Tabari, M. A., Rahmati, P., & Huang, Z. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2026.2730676
Melnyk, O., Кисельова, І. І., & Терещук, М. О. (2026) · Academic Visions · doi:10.66556/2786-586x.59.melnyk-o
Ardiyanti, L., Prastiwi, C. H. W., Rohmah, I. I. T., & Irhadtanto, B. (2026) · Tadris Jurnal Keguruan dan Ilmu Tarbiyah · doi:10.24042/tadris.v11i3.30434
Generative AI-Driven Personalized English Writing Feedback
He, Y., & Xiao, H. (2026) · Information Resources Management Journal · doi:10.4018/irmj.424033
Han, F., & Wang, Z. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16101837
Campues, R. M., & Contreras-Falcones, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1978336
Intervenções de correção em textos de estudantes chineses de PLE: professores vs. LLM
Jimeng, L. I., & Mendes, S. (2026) · Diacrítica · doi:10.21814/diacritica.7094
Li, J. (2026) · Social Sciences and Humanities Inquiry · doi:10.67728/sshi.2026.010
Elmadag, A. B., & Ghimire, A. (2026) · Marketing Education Review · doi:10.1080/10528008.2026.2705297
Gündoğdu, B., & Merç, A. (2026) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2026.101135
Liu, F., & Li, S. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7634601
Using AI-Powered Applications to Enhance Peer Feedback in the Online Classroom
Ahmadi, S., & Novak, E. (2026) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-80791-234-520261010
Sasaki, K., & Inoue, T. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-42074-9_4
Comparing ChatGPT and teacher feedback for EFL writing development
Babaee, N. N. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-02329-5 · Cited by 1
Designing Digital Writing Pedagogy: An SFL-Informed Genre-Based Framework for Higher Education
Agustina, E., Munir, A., & Setiawan, S. (2026) · International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT) · doi:10.38124/ijisrt/26oct125
Alvarado-Mendoza, M., & Contreras-Falcones, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1971754
Atar, C., & Tekin, S. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16111998
Jingye, L., Halim, H. A., & Saad, M. R. B. M. (2026) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2026.102376
Merrikhi, P. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-11277915/v1
Metadata
- Authors
- Guo, K., & Wang, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Deliang
- Venue
- Education and Information Technologies
- Published
- 2023-08-29
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 8435-8463
- ISSN
- 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7608
- OpenAlex
- W4386253646
- Cited by
- 449
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 191 · 2025: 166 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 503.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, teacher feedback, EFL writing, argumentative writing, automated feedback, teacher perceptions, Chinese undergraduates, writing development, teacher-AI collaboration
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
