Written Corrective Feedback in EFL Writing: A Human-Machine Comparison
Abstract
Abstract: Human-written corrective feedback (HWCF) and automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) are trusted to benefit students’ writing in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) course in higher education. This study analyzed the different impacts offered by both types of feedback on students' EFL writing. A systematic literature review with a PSALSAR framework was employed, involving 11 articles with the following inclusion criteria: the articles are taken from the Scopus database; the focus is on the EFL courses in higher education institutions setting; published between 2020-2025, and can be openly accessed. The findings reveal that both types have a positive and negative impact on students’ writing. Positively, HWCF mostly impacts students’ writing accuracy on revising their composition, including grammar mastery, learning engagement, and conditional metacognitive awareness. However, students’ engagement on HWCF depends on their individual proficiency and the types of feedback delivered (direct or indirect). AWCF is positively beneficial due to its influence on students’ writing accuracy and time efficiency. Nevertheless, AWCF does not have any significant impact on students’ writing quality, and it offers decontextualized feedback. To conclude this research, practical implications for lecturers, university management, and future research are presented.
Abstrak: Umpan balik korektif yang ditulis oleh manusia (HWCF) dan umpan balik korektif yang ditulis secara otomatis (AWCF) dipercaya dapat memberikan manfaat bagi penulisan siswa dalam kursus Bahasa Inggris sebagai Bahasa Asing (EFL) di perguruan tinggi. Penelitian ini menganalisis dampak yang berbeda yang ditawarkan oleh kedua jenis umpan balik tersebut terhadap penulisan EFL siswa. Sebuah tinjauan literatur sistematis dengan kerangka PSALSAR digunakan dalam penelitian ini, dengan melibatkan 11 artikel yang memenuhi kriteria berikut: artikel diambil dari database Scopus; fokus pada kursus EFL di lingkungan pendidikan tinggi; diterbitkan antara tahun 2020-2025, dan dapat diakses secara terbuka. Temuan menunjukkan bahwa kedua tipe tersebut memiliki dampak positif dan negatif terhadap tulisan siswa. Secara positif, HWCF sebagian besar berdampak pada ketepatan siswa dalam merevisi komposisi mereka, termasuk penguasaan tata bahasa, keterlibatan belajar, dan kesadaran metakognitif bersyarat. Namun, keterlibatan siswa dalam HWCF bergantung pada kemampuan individu dan jenis umpan balik yang disampaikan (langsung atau tidak langsung). AWCF bermanfaat secara positif karena pengaruhnya terhadap akurasi penulisan dan efisiensi waktu siswa. Namun demikian, AWCF tidak memiliki dampak yang signifikan terhadap kualitas tulisan siswa, dan memberikan umpan balik yang tidak kontekstual. Sebagai kesimpulan dari penelitian ini, disajikan implikasi praktis untuk dosen, manajemen universitas dan penelitian selanjutnya.
Keywords
Full Text:
DOWNLOAD [PDF]References
Al-Inbari, F. A. Y., & Al-Wasy, B. Q. M. (2023). The impact of automated writing evaluation (AWE) on EFL learners’ peer and self-editing. Education and Information Technologies, 28(6), 6645–6665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11458-x
Alhumaid, A. (2023). Exploring EFL female teachers’ and undergraduate students’ perceptions regarding written corrective feedback. Saudi Journal of Language Studies, 3(3), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/SJLS-11-2022-0079
Almanea, M. (2025). Less is NOT more for learners: EFL learners’ preferences and perceptions of teachers’ written corrective feedback. Acta Psychologica, 255(May), 104926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104926
Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using automated written corrective feedback in the writing classrooms: Effects on L2 writing accuracy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(4), 584–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1936071
Bauer, E., Sailer, M., Niklas, F., Greiff, S., Sarbu-Rothsching, S., Zottmann, J. M., Kiesewetter, J., Stadler, M., Fischer, M. R., Seidel, T., Urhahne, D., Sailer, M., & Fischer, F. (2025). AI-based adaptive feedback in simulations for teacher education: An experimental replication in the field. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(1), e13123. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13123
Canadian Institute for Knowledge Development. (2020). Scopus vs ISI WOS; Which one? March 5, 2020. https://cikd.ca/2020/03/05/scopus-vs-isi-wos-which-one/
Cheng, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2024). Investigating synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback in a computer-assisted environment: EFL learners’ linguistic performance and perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 0(0), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2315070
Chingchit, O. (2024). The contribution of written corrective feedback and its association with working memory on the development of EFL learners’ English plurals. Language Teaching Research, 13621688241246134. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241246134
Crosthwaite, P., Ningrum, S., & Lee, I. (2022). Research trends in L2 written corrective feedback: A bibliometric analysis of three decades of Scopus-indexed research on L2 WCF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 58(December), 100934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100934
Dai, W., Tsai, Y.-S., Lin, J., Aldino, A., Jin, H., Li, T., Gašević, D., & Chen, G. (2024). Assessing the proficiency of large language models in automatic feedback generation: An evaluation study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7(December), 100299. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100299
Ekanayaka, W. I., & Ellis, R. (2020). Does asking learners to revise add to the effect of written corrective feedback on L2 acquisition? System, 94(November), 102341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102341
Escalante, J., Pack, A., & Barrett, A. (2023). AI-generated feedback on writing: Insights into efficacy and ENL student preference. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2
Falhasiri, M. (2021). Is less really more? The case for comprehensive written corrective feedback. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2021.31242
Fan, N. (2023). Exploring the effects of automated written corrective feedback on EFL students’ writing quality: A mixed-methods study. SAGE Open, 13(2), 21582440231181296. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231181296
Gebremariam, H. T. (2024). Exploring the effects of written corrective feedback types on grammatical accuracy in l2 writing: Evidence from Ethiopian high school students. SAGE Open, 14(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241274331
Ghoorchaei, B., Fatemeh, M., Mohammad Ali, A., & and Mohammadzadeh, A. (2022). Effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on Iranian EFL writers’ short and long term retention of subject-verb agreement. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2014022. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.2014022
Guo, Q., Ruiling, F., & and Hua, Y. (2022). How effectively can EFL students use automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) in research writing? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2312–2331. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1879161
Gutierrez, M. J., Dabu, S. M., & Joy, A. M. (2024). Effect of written corrective feedback in research writing competence of non-education students. Educational Dimension, 11(2024), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.55056/ed.756
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/10.1177/13621688221127643
Hoang, G. T. L. (2024). Effects of automated feedback on English as a foreign language learners’ writing performance: Evidence from a quasi-experiment. RELC Journal, 55(2), 00336882241268359. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882241268359
Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical Teacher, 42(8), 846–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030
Kinder, A., Briese, F. J., Jacobs, M., Dern, N., Glodny, N., Jacobs, S., & Leßmann, S. (2025). Effects of adaptive feedback generated by a large language model: A case study in teacher education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8(June), 100349. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100349
Kurt, G., & Kurt, Y. (2024). Enhancing L2 writing skills: ChatGPT as an automated feedback tool. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 23(2024), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.28945/5370
Lalira, E., Pangemanan, Y. A. T., Scipio, J. E., Lumi, S., Merentek, C., & Tumuju, V. N. (2024). Evaluating the impact of AI tools on grammar mastery : A comparative study of learning outcomes. VELES Journal, 8(3), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v8i3.27856
Lee, I. (2024). The future of written corrective feedback research. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 19(4), 660–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2024.2388068
Li, Q., Swanto, S., & Said, N. B. (2023). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in enhancing EFL learner writing performance. Hong Kong Journal of Social Sciences, 61(61), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.55463/hkjss.issn.1021-3619.61.30
Lin, S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2024). The grass is not always greener: Teacher vs. GPT-assisted written corrective feedback. System, 127(December), 103529. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103529
Link, S., Mohaddeseh, M., & and Rahimi, M. (2022). Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 605–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323
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
Mao, Z., Lee, I., & Li, S. (2024). Written corrective feedback in second language writing: A synthesis of naturalistic classroom studies. Language Teaching, 57(4), 449–477. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/S0261444823000393
McCarthy, K. S., Roscoe, R. D., Allen, L. K., Likens, A. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2022). Automated writing evaluation: Does spelling and grammar feedback support high-quality writing and revision? Assessing Writing, 52(April), 100608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100608
Mejia, M. (2024). Metawriting: Empowering students to discover their knowledge of writing. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 8(1), 83–105. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202423833
Mengist, W., Soromessa, T., & Legese, G. (2020). Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research. MethodsX, 7(2020), 100777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2019.100777
Mohebbi, H. (2021). 25 years on, the written error correction debate continues: an interview with John Truscott. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-021-00110-9
Moon, D. (2021). Evaluating corrective feedback generated by an AI-powered online grammar checker. International Journal of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication, 13(4), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.7236/IJIBC.2021.13.4.22
Mujtaba, S. M., Reynolds, B. L., Parkash, R., & Singh, M. K. M. (2021). Individual and collaborative processing of written corrective feedback affects second language writing accuracy and revision. Assessing Writing, 50(October), 100566. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100566
Pan, J., Chen, H., & Yuan, S. (2023). A comparative study of the engagement with written corrective feedback of Chinese private college students. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-023-00191-8
Quaia, E., Zanon, C., Vieira, A., Loewe, C., & Marti-Bonmatí, L. (2024). Publishing in open access journals. Insights into Imaging, 15(1), 212. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-024-01794-6
Rahimi, M., Fathi, J., & Zou, D. (2025). Exploring the impact of automated written corrective feedback on the academic writing skills of EFL learners: An activity theory perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 30(3), 2691–2735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12896-5
Rasool, U., Qian, J., & Aslam, M. Z. (2024). Understanding the significance of EFL Students’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback. SAGE Open, 14(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241256562
Sari, E., & Han, T. (2024). The impact of automated writing evaluation on English as a foreign language learners’ writing self-efficacy, self-regulation, anxiety, and performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(5), 2065–2080. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13004
Shen, R., & and Chong, S. W. (2023). Learner engagement with written corrective feedback in ESL and EFL contexts: A qualitative research synthesis using a perception-based framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(3), 276–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2072468
Shen, R., & Chong, S. W. (2023). Learner engagement with written corrective feedback in ESL and EFL contexts: a qualitative research synthesis using a perception-based framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(3), 276–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2072468
Shi, H., & Aryadoust, V. (2024). A systematic review of AI-based automated written feedback research. ReCALL, 36(2), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344023000265
Soleimani, M., & Modirkhamene, S. (2020). Various corrective feedback types in collaborative vs. individual writing conditions. International Journal of Research in English Education, 5(3), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.29252/ijree.5.3.24
Supiani, Yansyah, & Basthomi, Y. (2023). Indonesian university students’ engagement with teacher’s written corrective feedback in English as an additional language writing classroom. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2023.121334
Taye, T., & Mengesha, M. (2024). Identifying and analyzing common English writing challenges among regular undergraduate students. Heliyon, 10(17), e36876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36876
Thi, N. K., & Nikolov, M. (2022). How teacher and grammarly feedback complement one another in Myanmar EFL students’ writing. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31(6), 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00625-2
Wei, P., Wang, X., & Dong, H. (2023). The impact of automated writing evaluation on second language writing skills of Chinese EFL learners: A randomized controlled trial. In Frontiers in Psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 01–11). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1249991
Wondim, B. M., Bishaw, K. S., & Zeleke, Y. T. (2024). Effectiveness of teachers’ direct and indirect written corrective feedback provision strategies on enhancing students’ writing achievement: Ethiopian university entrants in focus. Heliyon, 10(2), e24279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24279
Woodworth, J., & Barkaoui, K. (2020). Perspectives on using automated writing evaluation systems to provide written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. TESL Canada Journal, 37(2), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v37i2.1340
Yang, H., Gao, C., & Shen, H. Z. (2024). Learner interaction with, and response to, AI-programmed automated writing evaluation feedback in EFL writing: An exploratory study. Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 3837–3858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11991-3
Yang, L. F., Zhang, L. J., & Dixon, H. R. (2023). Understanding the impact of teacher feedback on EFL students’ use of self-regulated writing strategies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 60(June), 101015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101015
Yaseen, M., Hamzah, M. H., & Harun, M. (2024). Corrective feedback on essay writing: English as second language teachers’ and students’ perspectives. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education , 13(4), 2758–2771. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i4.26890
Yeboah, A. (2023). Knowledge sharing in organization: A systematic review. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1), 2195027. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2195027
Yu, S. (2021). Feedback-giving practice for L2 writing teachers: Friend or foe? Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100798. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100798
Yu, S., Zheng, Y., Jiang, L., Liu, C., & Xu, Y. (2021). “I even feel annoyed and angry”: Teacher emotional experiences in giving feedback on student writing. Assessing Writing, 48(April), 100528. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100528
Yunus, W. N. M. W. M. (2020). Written corrective feedback in English compositions: Teachers’ practices and students’ expectations. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 3(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v3i2.2255
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31764/pendekar.v8i2.31437
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2025 Susilawati, Arrizqi Ramadhan, Nurhasanah Halim, Retno Dwigustini, Ali Satri Efendi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Contact Admin:
Email: [email protected]
WhatsApp: +62 853-3397-5477
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Pendekar : Jurnal Pendidikan Berkarakter already indexed:
