LLM-Generated Feedback in L2 Writing: A Scoping Review
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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).”
From Think Before You Accept: Can Written Justification Reduce Uncritical Uptake of AI Writing Suggestions? (2026) · cites this paper as Craven & Fredrick, 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
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565 · see citing works
Guo, K., & Wang, D. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0 · Cited by 449 · see citing works
Shi, H., Chai, C. S., Zhou, S., & Aubrey, S. (2026) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2025.2454541 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Tran, T. T. T. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15020232 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Generative AI and L2 Written Feedback Studies: A Scoping Review
Crosthwaite, P., & Sun, S. (2026) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/00336882251386530 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Generative AI vs. Teachers: Feedback Quality, Feedback Uptake, and Revision
Yu, H., & Xie, Q. (2025) · Language Teaching Research Quarterly · doi:10.32038/ltrq.2025.47.07 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Yang, Y., Hussin, S., & Hashim, H. (2025) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.17507/tpls.1511.30 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 74
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Hyland, K. (2025). EFL teachers and feedback fatigue: AI to the rescue? Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444825101018. · DOI
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- CrossRef · DOI
- Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32.
- CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
- CrossRef · DOI
- CrossRef · DOI
- 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.
- CrossRef · DOI
- Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325.
- CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
- CrossRef · DOI
- 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.
- CrossRef · DOI
- 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.
- CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
- 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.
- CrossRef · DOI
- 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
- 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.
- CrossRef · DOI
- Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
- Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), 69. [CrossRef] PubMed · DOI · Paper page
- 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.
- CrossRef · DOI
- CrossRef · DOI
- 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.
- CrossRef · DOI
- CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
- 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.
- CrossRef · DOI
- 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.
- CrossRef · DOI
- 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.
- CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
- Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
- CrossRef · DOI
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
- Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2008). Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3(1), 22-36.
- 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.
- CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
- 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.
- CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
- Yu, H., & Xie, Q. (2025). Generative AI vs. teachers: Feedback quality, feedback uptake, and revision. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 47, 113-137.
- CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
- 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
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tao, Y., Meyer, J., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.23936
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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