Cited by 4EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningArtificial Intelligence in EducationSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

LLM-Generated Feedback in L2 Writing: A Scoping Review

Open access
Craven, Laurence, Fredrick, Daniel R.·2026·Education Sciences

Abstract

The release of ChatGPT in November 2022 transformed second language (L2) writing instruction and led to rapid growth in research on large language model (LLM)-generated feedback; however, no synthesis has mapped this literature in terms of feedback quality, learner uptake, and pedagogical integration. This scoping review examines 185 empirical studies published between November 2022 and March 2026 that were identified through a Scopus search (n = 283 screened) and analysed using a systematic keyword-based charting framework applied to full abstracts, with full-text analysis of 35 studies. The review identifies four major patterns: (1) comparative AI–human feedback research dominates the literature (27.6%); (2) content-level feedback remains underexplored (13.5% of studies); (3) learner uptake is rarely measured as a primary outcome; and (4) LLM feedback is broadly comparable to teacher feedback for surface-level errors but weaker for content and argumentation, while learner perceptions often exceed demonstrated performance outcomes. Hybrid AI–teacher models show promising but underexamined potential, accounting for only 12.4% of the literature. The field shows a focus on perceptions rather than learning outcomes, an apparent tendency toward positive-results reporting, and no clear teaching models. This study proposes a typology of LLM feedback functions and outlines a research agenda focused on uptake, longitudinal outcomes, and hybrid AI–teacher integration.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/educsci16081196

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • LLM feedback has been found comparable to human teacher feedback for surface-level issues such as grammar and clarity, but its quality is contested for content and argumentation.

    “Although LLM feedback has been found to be comparable to human teacher feedback for surface-level issues such as grammar and clarity, its quality is contested for content and argumentation (Craven & Fredrick, 2026;Hyland, 2026).”

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 74

  1. Alnemrat, A., Aldamen, H., Almashour, M., Al-Deaibes, M., & AlSharefeen, R. (2025). AI vs. teacher feedback on EFL argumentative writing: A quantitative study. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1614673. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1614673. · DOI
  2. Asadi, M., Ebadi, S., & Mohammadi, L. (2025). The impact of integrating ChatGPT with teachers' feedback on EFL writing skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 56, 101766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101766. · DOI
  3. Bozorgian, H., & Rahimi, H. (2025). Peer e-feedback and ChatGPT-4o in EFL writing: A cognitive-interpersonal comparison based on EFL students. Journal of Language and Education, 11(4), 51-65. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2025.27195. · DOI
  4. Cengiz, B. C., Bilki, Z., Ataş, A. H., & Celik, B. (2025). Exploring second language writers' engagement with ChatGPT feedback: Revision behaviors and perceptions. System, 134, 103837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103837. · DOI
  5. ElEbyary, K., & Shabara, R. (2024). ChatGPT-generated corrective feedback: Does it do what it says on the tin? Teaching English with Technology, 24(3), 68-89. https://doi.org/ 10.56297/vaca6841//BFFO7057/MYEH4562. · DOI
  6. Hwang, M., Jeens, R., & Lee, H.-K. (2025). Exploring learner prompting behavior and its effect on ChatGPT-assisted English writing revision. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 34(3), 1157-1167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00930-6. · DOI
  7. Hyland, K. (2025). EFL teachers and feedback fatigue: AI to the rescue? Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444825101018. · DOI
  8. Kang, S., & Kim, M. (2026). AI-generated feedback in an EAP writing classroom: The collaborative process of feedback, uptake, and revision quality. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 80, 101639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2026.101639. · DOI
  9. Koltovskaia, S., Rahmati, P., & Saeli, H. (2024). Graduate students' use of ChatGPT for academic text revision: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement. Journal of Second Language Writing, 65, 101130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101130. · DOI
  10. Li, J., Huang, J., Wu, W., & Whipple, P. B. (2024). Evaluating the role of ChatGPT in enhancing EFL writing assessments in classroom settings. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1268. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03755-2. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16081196 · DOI
  11. Lin, S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2024). The grass is not always greener: Teacher vs. GPT- assisted written corrective feedback. System, 127, 103529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system .2024.103529. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Luo, N., Wang, Y., Zhang, Z. V., Zhou, Y., & Zhao, R. (2025). Impact of prompt sophistication on ChatGPT's output for automated written corrective feedback. ReCALL. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834402510044X. · DOI
  13. Ma, X., Zhang, C., & Lee, I. (2026). L2 learners' engagement with AI-generated feedback on writing. Assessing Writing, 68, 101020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2026.101020. · DOI
  14. Mahapatra, S. (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. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Meng, Y., Cui, Y., Geng, X., & Cao, Y. (2025). Exploring feedback literacy in L2 students' academic writing: Insights from their reported engagement with GenAI for typical revision activities. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40299-025-01051-4. · DOI
  16. Muñoz Muñoz, B. C., Nassaji, H., & Bello Carrillo, F. I. (2025). ChatGPT-generated versus human direct corrective feedback on L2 writing. System, 134, 103805. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103805. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Polakova, P., & Ivenz, P. (2024). The impact of ChatGPT feedback on the development of EFL students' writing skills. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2410101. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 2331186X.2024.2410101. · DOI
  18. Pretorius, M., & Thewissen, J. (2026). Mediating L2 writing revision: The impact of teacher-moderated ChatGPT feedback on L2 accuracy and lexical diversity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 71, 101286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2026.101286. · DOI
  19. Saricaoglu, A., & Bilki, Z. (2025). The capacity of ChatGPT-4 for L2 writing assessment: A closer look at accuracy, specificity, and relevance. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 253-273. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190525100160. · DOI
  20. Schiller, R., Fleckenstein, J., Höft, L., Horbach, A., & Meyer, J. (2025). On the role of engagement in automated feedback effectiveness: Insights from keystroke logging. Computers and Education, 238, 105386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105386. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Soori, A., Khojasteh, L., & Javed, F. (2025). Comparing teacher E-feedback, AI feedback, and hybrid feedback in enhancing EFL writing skills. Technology in Language Teaching and Learning, 7(3), 102626. https://doi.org/10.29140/tltl.v7n3.102626. · DOI
  22. Wang, C., & Wang, Z. (2025). Investigating L2 writers' critical AI literacy in AI-assisted writing: An APSE model. Journal of Second Language Writing, 67, 101187. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101187. · DOI
  23. Wu, Z., & Zhao, J. (2025). Exploring learners' engagement with GenAI-generated feedback in EFL writing: a Chinese middle school case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2025.2600035. · DOI
  24. Yan, D., & Zhang, S. (2024). L2 writer engagement with automated written corrective feedback provided by ChatGPT: A mixed-method multiple case study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1086. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03543-y. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16081196 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Yeung, S. (2025). University students' engagement with generative AI-supported automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 68, 101203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101203. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Zhang, Z., Aubrey, S., Huang, X., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2025). The role of generative AI and hybrid feedback in improving L2 writing skills: a comparative study. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2025.2503890. · DOI
  27. Zhu, R., Wang, H., & Qin, X. (2025). Longitudinal comparison of AI, exemplar, and teacher feedback for sustainable L2 writing development: a latent growth curve analysis. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2025.2586142. · DOI
  28. Ziqi, C., Xinhua, Z., Qi, L., & Wei, W. (2024). L2 students' barriers in engaging with form and content-focused AI-generated feedback in revising their compositions. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2422478. · DOI
  29. Zohali, L., Storch, N., & Knoch, U. (2026). From red pen to algorithm: How do L2 learners engage with human and automated feedback? RELC Journal. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/00336882261419844. · DOI
  30. Zou, S., Guo, K., Wang, J., & Liu, Y. (2025). Investigating students' uptake of teacher- and ChatGPT-generated feedback in EFL writing: a comparison study. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2447279. · DOI · Paper page
  31. CrossRef · DOI
  32. Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32.
  33. CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
  34. CrossRef · DOI
  35. CrossRef · DOI
  36. Bozorgian, H., & Rahimi, H. (2025). Peer e-feedback and ChatGPT-4o in EFL writing: A cognitive-interpersonal comparison based on EFL students. Journal of Language and Education, 11(4), 54-65.
  37. CrossRef · DOI
  38. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325.
  39. CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
  40. CrossRef · DOI
  41. ElEbyary, K., & Shabara, R. (2024). ChatGPT-generated corrective feedback: Does it do what it says on the tin? Teaching English with Technology, 24(3), 68-89.
  42. CrossRef · DOI
  43. Guo, K., & Wang, D. (2024). 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.
  44. CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
  45. Hwang, M., Jeens, R., & Lee, H.-K. (2025). Exploring learner prompting behavior and its effect on ChatGPT-assisted English writing revision. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 34(3), 1157-1167.
  46. CrossRef · DOI
  47. Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18. [CrossRef] https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16081196
  48. Koltovskaia, S., Rahmati, P., & Saeli, H. (2024). Graduate students' use of ChatGPT for academic text revision: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement. Journal of Second Language Writing, 65, 101130.
  49. CrossRef · DOI
  50. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
  51. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), 69. [CrossRef] PubMed · DOI · Paper page
  52. Li, J., Huang, J., Wu, W., & Whipple, P. B. (2024). Evaluating the role of ChatGPT in enhancing EFL writing assessments in classroom settings. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1268.
  53. CrossRef · DOI
  54. CrossRef · DOI
  55. Saricaoglu, A., & Bilki, Z. (2025). The capacity of ChatGPT-4 for L2 writing assessment: A closer look at accuracy, specificity, and relevance. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 253-273.
  56. CrossRef · DOI
  57. CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
  58. Sinha, T. S., & Nassaji, H. (2022). ESL learners' perception and its relationship with the efficacy of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32, 41-56.
  59. CrossRef · DOI
  60. Soori, A., Khojasteh, L., & Javed, F. (2025). Comparing teacher e-feedback, AI feedback, and hybrid feedback in enhancing EFL writing skills. Technology in Language Teaching and Learning, 7(3), 102626.
  61. CrossRef · DOI
  62. Tran, T. T. T. (2025). Enhancing EFL writing revision practices: The impact of AI-and teacher-generated feedback and their sequences. Education Sciences, 15(2), 232.
  63. CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
  64. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
  65. CrossRef · DOI
  66. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  67. Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2008). Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3(1), 22-36.
  68. Yan, D., & Zhang, S. (2024). L2 writer engagement with automated written corrective feedback provided by ChatGPT: A mixed-method multiple case study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1086.
  69. CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
  70. Yang, Y., Hussin, S., & Hashim, H. (2025). Feedback literacy and EFL learner engagement with ChatGPT feedback: Predicting feedback uptake and perceived usefulness. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 15(11), 3760-3771.
  71. CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
  72. Yu, H., & Xie, Q. (2025). Generative AI vs. teachers: Feedback quality, feedback uptake, and revision. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 47, 113-137.
  73. CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
  74. Zou, S., Guo, K., Wang, J., & Liu, Y. (2025). Investigating students' uptake of teacher-and ChatGPT-generated feedback in EFL writing: A comparison study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 39, 1062-1091. [CrossRef · DOI · Paper page

Authors
Craven, L., & Fredrick, D. R.
Affiliations
American University of Sharjah (AE)
Corresponding author
Craven, Laurence
Venue
Education Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2026-07-27
Volume
16
Issue
8
Pages
1196
ISSN
2227-7102 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7171372165
Cited by
4
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
45.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Education Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
LLM-generated feedback, second language writing, large language models, ChatGPT, learner uptake, teacher feedback, argumentation, learner perceptions, writing instruction

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