Enhancing Writing Accuracy and Empowering Students: The Transformative Influence of ChatGPT's Informative Feedback on Students'Writing

Authors

  • Nouf J Aljohani

    Department of Language and Translation, University of Jeddah, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i7.9849
Received: 3 May 2025 | Revised: 22 May 2025 | Accepted: 12 June 2025 | Published Online: 23 July 2025

Abstract

The rapid adoption of ChatGPT in second language learning has revolutionized the ways learners acquire and practice new languages. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of instructional assistance (IA) formative feedback provided by ChatGPT in enhancing learners' writing skills, addressing the limited research available on the impact of AI tools on writing development. The participants included 50 undergraduate students enrolled in English language courses and 5 experienced English language teachers who served as essay raters. A mixed-methodology approach was employed, combining quantitative data from students' essays and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) surveys with qualitative insights gathered through the think-aloud technique. The results indicated that positive responses to IA formative feedback significantly boosted the quality of students' writing, with notable improvements in coherence, grammar, and overall engagement with the writing process. Furthermore, the findings revealed that such feedback fostered greater independence among students, empowering them to take ownership of their writing and engage in self-directed learning. Participants reported increased confidence in their writing abilities, correlating with their positive experiences using ChatGPT as a formative feedback tool. This study contributes to the growing body of literature on the role of AI in education, particularly in language acquisition. By demonstrating the potential of ChatGPT as a supportive tool in writing instruction, this research highlights its effectiveness while encouraging further exploration into the integration of AI technologies in language learning environments. Ultimately, the findings aim to enhance educational outcomes for learners across diverse settings and promote innovative pedagogical practices that leverage the capabilities of AI in fostering effective language learning experiences.

Keywords:

AI Formative Feedback; Writing Skill; Artificial Intelligence; English as a Foreign Language

References

[1] Kulhavy, W., Stock, A., 1989. Feedback in written instruction: the place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review. 1(4), 279–308.

[2] Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Kulik, C.L.C., Kulik, J.A., et al., 1991. The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research. 61(2), 213–238.

[3] Su, Y., Lin, Y., Lai, C., 2023. Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing Writing. 57, 100752.

[4] Steiss, J., Tate, T., Graham, S., et al., 2024. Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students’ writing. Learning and Instruction. 91, 101894.

[5] Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., et al., 2016. Intelligence Unleashed: An Argument for AI in Education. Pearson: London, UK. Available from: https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/edu.google.com/en//pdfs/Intelligence-Unleashed-Publication.pdf (cited 8 June 2025).

[6] Emami, M., Alizadeh, Z., Nazari, K., et al., 2012. Antecedents and consequences of organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). International Journal of Contemporary Research in Business. 3(9), 494–505.

[7] Xia, Q., Chiu, T.K.F., Lee, M., et al., 2022. A self-determination theory (SDT) design approach for inclusive and diverse artificial intelligence (AI) education. Computers & Education. 189, 104582.

[8] Zhang, R., Zou, D., Cheng, G., 2025. ChatGPT affordance for logic learning strategies and its usefulness for developing knowledge and quality of logic in English argumentative writing. System. 128(3), 103561.

[9] Barrot, S., 2023. Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing. 57, 100745.

[10] Jurayev, N., 2023. The use of mobile learning applications in higher education institutes. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research. 3(1), 610–620.

[11] Sukmayasa, H., Sudiana, N., 2023. The effect of the whole language approach on learning motivation and productive communication skills of students. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research. 3(1), 596–601.

[12] Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, L., Zou, D., 2023. ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal. 54(2), 537–550.

[13] Cruz, S., Torres, A., Lencastre, A., 2024. Explore first approach in a virtual and immersive learning environment with ChatGPT. Open Journal of Computer and Media Technologies. 14(3), e202435.

[14] Kim, Y., Kang, S., D'Arienzo, M., et al., 2023. Comparing traditional and task-based approaches to teaching pragmatics: task design processes and learning outcomes. Language Teaching Research. 13621688231195876. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231195876

[15] Han, J., Li, M., 2024. Exploring ChatGPT-supported teacher feedback in the EFL context. System. 126, 103502.

[16] Hawanti, S., Zubaydulloevna, M., 2023. AI chatbot-based learning: alleviating students' anxiety in english writing classroom. Bulletin of Social Informatics Theory and Application. 7(2), 182–192.

[17] Črček, N., Patekar, J., 2023. Writing with AI: university students’ use of ChatGPT. Journal of Language and Education. 9(4), 128–138.

[18] Davis, D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 13(3), 319–339.

[19] Chau, Y., Hu, H., 2001. Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model comparison approach. Decision Sciences. 32(4), 699–719.

[20] Ndubisi, O., Jantan, M., Richardson, S., 2001. Is the technology acceptance model valid for entrepreneurs? Model testing and examining usage determinants. Asian Academy of Management Journal. 6(2), 31–54.

[21] Davis, D., Bagozzi, P., Warshaw, R., 1989. User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science. 35(8), 982–1003. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982

[22] Abdullah, F., Ward, R., Ahmed, E., 2016. Investigating the influence of the most commonly used external variables of TAM on students’ Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived Usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios. Computers in Human Behavior. 63, 75–90.

[23] Masrom, M., 2007. Technology Acceptance Model and E-learning. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Education, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Institute of Education, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, (21–24 May 2007); pp. 1–10.

[24] Cowan, P., Earls, J., 2016. Using the Technology Acceptance Model to Determine Teachers’ Attitudes Towards the Introduction of IPads in the Classroom. In Proceedings of the EdMedia 2016-World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, Vancouver, BC, Canada, (27–30 June 2016); . Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education: Waynesville, NC, USA. pp. 921–926.

[25] Alharbi, S., Drew, S., 2014. Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications. 5(1), 143–155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2014.050120

[26] Mugo, G., Njagi, K., Chemwei, B., et al., 2017. The technology acceptance model (TAM) and its application to the utilization of mobile learning technologies. Journal of Advances in Mathematics and Computer Science. 20(4), 1–8.

[27] Kim, J., 2006. Toward an understanding of Web-based subscription database acceptance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(13), 1715–1728.

[28] Van Someren, F., Barnard, Y., Sandber, J., 1994. The Think Aloud Method: a Practical Guide to Modeling Cognitive Processes. Academic Press: London, UK.

[29] Shroff, H., Deneen, C., Ng, M., 2011. Analysis of the technology acceptance model in examining students' behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 27(4), 600–618.

[30] Lam, T.C., Klockars, A.J., 1982. Anchor point effects on the equivalence of questionnaire items. Journal of Educational Measurement. 19(4), 317–322.

[31] Hoppmann, K., 2009. Examining the ‘point of frustration’. The think-aloud method applied to online search tasks. Quality & Quantity. 43, 211–224.

[32] Johnson, L., Penny, J., Gordon, B., et al., 2005. Resolving score differences in the rating of writing samples: does discussion improve the accuracy of scores? Language Assessment Quarterly. 2(2), 117–146.

[33] Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 50(2), 179–211.

[34] Lee, Y., Chen, H., Wang, S., et al., 2024. Empowering ChatGPT with guidance mechanism in blended learning: effect of self-regulated learning, higher-order thinking skills, and knowledge construction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 21(1), 16.

[35] Nguyen, E., Poli, M., Durrant, M.G., et al., 2024. Sequence modeling and design from molecular to genome scale with Evo. Science. 386(6723), eado9336.

[36] Lo, N., Wong, A., Chan, S., 2025. The impact of generative AI on essay revisions and student engagement. Computers and Education Open. In Press. 100249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100249

[37] Jones, J., Smith, A., 2024. Student perceptions of the immediate feedback assessment technique (IF-AT) on perceptions of learning and reduction of stress. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning. 51, 15–21. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2018.10.1.4

[38] Marzuki, W.U., Rusdin, D., Darwin, et al., 2023. The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective. Cogent Education. 10(2), 2236469.

[39] Sova, R., Tudor, C., Tartavulea, V., et al., 2024. Artificial intelligence tool adoption in higher education: a structural equation modeling approach to understanding impact factors among Economics students. Electronics. 13(18), 3632.

[40] Smith, L., Fowler, S., Gabriel, F., et al., 2023. Measuring metacognition in children and adolescents. University of South Australia: Mount Gambier, Australia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25954/680q-4q79

[41] Hattie, J., Timperley, H., 2007. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research. 77(1), 81–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

[42] Zimmerman, B., 2002. Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory Into Practice. 41(2), 64–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

[43] Darwin, Rusdin, D., Mukminatien, N., et al., 2024. Critical thinking in the Al era: an exploration of EFL, students’ perceptions, benefits, and limitations. Cogent Education. 11(1), 2290342.

[44] Nicol, J., Macfarlane-Dick, D., 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education. 31(2), 199–218.

Downloads

How to Cite

Aljohani, N. J. (2025). Enhancing Writing Accuracy and Empowering Students: The Transformative Influence of ChatGPT’s Informative Feedback on Students’Writing. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(7), 1109–1128. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i7.9849

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 7 (July 2025)

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 nouf J Aljohani

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.