CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31Student Assessment and FeedbackEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningArtificial Intelligence in Education

Generative AI vs. Teachers: Feedback Quality, Feedback Uptake, and Revision

Open access
Yu, Hetian, Xie, Qin·2025·Language Teaching Research Quarterly
DOI 10.32038/ltrq.2025.47.07
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Generative AI has stormed the education community worldwide. Gen-AI’s potential to assist teachers in providing feedback to students is the focus of the current research. Specifically, the research investigated how similar or different AI-generated feedback was from teacher feedback, and whether there were differences in students’ responses to the two feedback sources. The research adopted a 2x2 counter-balance experimental design (Latin Square), whereby the participants were divided into two groups to write on two topics, receive feedback, and resubmit the revised work. The participants were 60 EFL secondary students and four teachers from a high school in China. All teachers and a Gen-AI bot (ChatGPT) marked and provided feedback on the 240 written samples. The analysis of the 1200 records (240*5) found that the AI-bot’s surface-level feedback was comprehensive, accurate, and similar to that of one teacher. It outperformed the teacher qualitatively and quantitatively in the meaning-level feedback. Overall, teacher feedback received higher student uptake rates, but the difference was small. Students were capable of adopting a variety of strategies to respond to the feedback regardless of its sources. The findings support adopting ChatGPT feedback as a supplement to teacher feedback given to novice EFL writers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.32038/ltrq.2025.47.07

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Yu, H., & Xie, Q.
Affiliations
  • Education University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • University of Macau (MO)
ORCID
Venue
Language Teaching Research Quarterly
Publisher
EUROKD Egitm Danismanlik Group
Published
2025-04
Volume
47
Pages
113-137
ISSN
  • 2651-3110 (ISSN-L)
  • 2667-6753
DOI
10.32038/ltrq.2025.47.07
OpenAlex
W4410062913
Cited by
22
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 4
FWCI
68.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Language Teaching Research Quarterly (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Education University of Hong Kong
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
generative AI, AI-generated feedback, teacher feedback, ChatGPT, feedback uptake, revision, EFL writing, high school students, novice writers, AI-assisted writing

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