ChatGPT 5.5 as an Automated Corrective Feedback Tool: Effects on the Writing Performance of EFL Learners
DOI:
10.70211/ltsm.3026-7196.737Published:
2026-08-03Downloads
Abstract
The present paper focused on examining the application of GPT‑5.5 as an automated corrective feedback tool for improving the writing skills of 60 Omani pre‑intermediate EFL students enrolled in a foundation program. A quasi‑experimental pretest–posttest design was used, and the participants were divided into two groups, namely an experimental group and a control group, each receiving instruction on advantages‑and‑disadvantages essays. While both groups followed the same syllabus and classroom procedures, only the experimental group utilized GPT‑5.5 AI tool for iterative feedback and revision, supplemented by teacher explanation and clarification. The analytic scoring of the pretest and posttest compositions demonstrated that both groups made progress, yet the experimental group scored substantially better on the posttest, with a large effect size. The results imply that the use of AI‑mediated feedback, when systematically integrated with teacher support, can be an effective and scalable way to advance EFL learners’ writing skills in similar contexts.
Keywords:
GPT‑5.5 Automated Corrective Feedback EFL Writing Artificial IntelligenceReferences
[1] M. M. H. Ahmed, P. S. McGahan, B. Indurkhya, K. Kaneko, and M. Nakagawa, “Effects of synchronized and asynchronized e-feedback interactions on academic writing, achievement motivation and critical thinking,” Knowledge Management & E-Learning, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 290–315, 2021. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2021.13.016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2021.13.016
[2] M. F. Suleiman, “The process and product of writing: Implications for elementary school teachers,” ERIC, Washington, DC, USA, Rep. ED442299, 2000. [Online]. Available: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED442299
[3] G. Gay, Developing Dimensions of Written Language. Toronto, ON, Canada: Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, 2002. [Online]. Available: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/misunderstoodminds/resources.html
[4] H. Banaruee, Recast in Writing. Isfahan, Iran: Sana Gostar Publications, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320677819_Recast_in_Writing
[5] J. C. Richards and W. A. Renandya, Eds., Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667190 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667190
[6] J. Bitchener and D. R. Ferris, Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2012. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400
[7] H. A. Khadawardi, “The effect of implicit corrective feedback on English writing of international second language learners,” English Language Teaching, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 123–139, 2021. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v14n1p123 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v14n1p123
[8] X. Zhang, “Reading-writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development,” Language Teaching Research, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 217–240, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815623291 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815623291
[9] K. Hyland and F. Hyland, “Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing,” in Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues, 2nd ed., K. Hyland and F. Hyland, Eds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019, pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.003
[10] D. R. Ferris, “The ‘grammar correction’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (And what do we do in the meantime . . . ?),” Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 49–62, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005
[11] D. R. Ferris, “Preparing teachers to respond to student writing,” Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 165–193, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.003
[12] K. Karim and H. Nassaji, “The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing,” Language Teaching Research, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 519–539, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469
[13] I. Lee, “Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice,” ELT Journal, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 13–22, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn010
[14] J. Wilson and A. Czik, “Automated essay evaluation software in English language arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality,” Computers & Education, vol. 100, pp. 94–109, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.004
[15] S. Koltovskaia, “Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study,” Assessing Writing, vol. 44, Art. no. 100450, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450
[16] J. Li, S. Link, and V. Hegelheimer, “Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction,” Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 27, pp. 1–18, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004
[17] J. Ranalli, “Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it?” Computer Assisted Language Learning, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 653–674, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994
[18] D. Grimes and M. Warschauer, “Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation,” The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 4–43, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1625
[19] A. Frankenberg-Garcia, “Combining user needs, lexicographic data and digital writing environments,” Language Teaching, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 29–43, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000277 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000277
[20] L. Wang, G. Zhang, J. Chen, X. Lu, and F. Song, “The territory effect: How awe reduces territoriality and enhances sharing intention,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 148, pp. 1–11, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.014
[21] B. Hammoda, “The impact of educational technologies on entrepreneurial competencies: A systematic review of empirical evidence,” Knowledge Management & E-Learning, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 309–333, 2024. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2024.16.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2024.16.015
[22] J. Wilson and R. D. Roscoe, “Automated writing evaluation and feedback: Multiple metrics of efficacy,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 87–125, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119830764 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119830764
[23] J. Wilson, N. G. Olinghouse, and G. N. Andrada, “Does automated feedback improve writing quality?” Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 93–118, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1039856.pdf
[24] T. Han and E. Sari, “An investigation on the use of automated feedback in Turkish EFL students’ writing classes,” Computer Assisted Language Learning, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 961–985, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2067179 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2067179
[25] J. S. Barrot, “Using automated written corrective feedback in the writing classroom: Effects on L2 writing accuracy,” Computer Assisted Language Learning, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 584–607, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1936071 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1936071
[26] J. S. Barrot, “Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials,” Assessing Writing, vol. 57, Art. no. 100745, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745
[27] M. Stevenson and A. Phakiti, “The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing,” Assessing Writing, vol. 19, pp. 51–65, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007
[28] J. Ranalli, “L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for learning and issues of trust,” Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 52, Art. no. 100816, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100816 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100816
[29] A. Al Ghaithi and B. Behforouz, “Effects of interaction with AI-assisted writing evaluation on EFL students’ writing performance,” Knowledge Management & E-Learning, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 206–224, 2025. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2025.17.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2025.17.009
[30] A. Al Maqbali, S. Al-Hanshi, A. Al Ghaithi, and B. Behforouz, “Reimagining writing feedback: The effect of Copilot artificial intelligence (AI) on English foreign language (EFL) students’ written performance,” International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 94–110, 2026. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.25.1.5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.25.1.5
[31] Y. Pratama, F. Fridolini, and R. M. Pitaloka, “The impact of AI QuillBot in improving student writing ability to write argumentative essays,” English Review: Journal of English Education, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 215–222, 2025. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v13i1.9746 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v13i1.9746
[32] E. Apriani et al., “Impact of AI-powered chatbots on EFL students’ writing skills, self-efficacy, and self-regulation: A mixed-methods study,” Global Educational Research Review, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 57–72, 2024. https://doi.org/10.71380/GERR-08-2024-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.71380/GERR-08-2024-8
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Abdullah Al Maqbali, Olga Taga
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
