Effects of AI-Generated Direct and Metalinguistic Written Corrective Feedback on Grammatical Accuracy: Evidence from the English Passive Causative

Nourizadeh, Nargess; Valadi, Amir; Alavi Moghaddam, Behnam

doi:10.22034/jls.2026.145278.1339

فهرست نشریات

دومین نسخه چاپی مجله فصلنامه مطالعات ادبی و فرهنگی معاصر

آیین نامه نشریات علمی مصوب اردیبهشت ۱۳۹۸

شیوه نامه ارزیابی و رتبه بندی نشریات علمی

سامانه همیاب با امکان مشابهت یابی مقالات فعال شد

تقدیر و تشکر از چهار عنوان مجله برتر دانشگاه کردستان در هفته پژوهش

تعداد نشریات	34
تعداد شماره‌ها	459
تعداد مقالات	4,350
تعداد مشاهده مقاله	6,750,166
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله	6,604,788

	Effects of AI-Generated Direct and Metalinguistic Written Corrective Feedback on Grammatical Accuracy: Evidence from the English Passive Causative
پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی: نظریه و کاربرد
مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده، انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 23 مهر 1405 اصل مقاله (625.23 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/jls.2026.145278.1339
نویسندگان
Nargess Nourizadeh^* ¹؛ Amir Valadi²؛ Behnam Alavi Moghaddam³
¹Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Lorestan University, Khoramabad, Iran.
²Assistant Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature Education, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran.
³Associate Professor, Department of Foreign Languages, Educational Research and Planning Organization, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده
The growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in second language writing has increased interest in AI-generated written corrective feedback; however, little is known about how different feedback types influence the retention of grammatical knowledge over time. Grounded in form-focused instruction and written corrective feedback research, this study examined the effects of AI-generated corrective feedback and metalinguistic feedback on EFL learners’ sentence-level grammatical accuracy. Fifty-eight university students were assigned to two feedback conditions, and their accuracy was assessed through a pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest targeting the English passive causative construction. Both feedback types produced substantial improvements in grammatical accuracy on the immediate posttest. However, learners who received AI-generated metalinguistic feedback maintained higher accuracy on the delayed posttest than those receiving direct corrective feedback, indicating different developmental trajectories. These findings highlight the importance of feedback explicitness in AI-mediated grammar instruction and offer pedagogical implications for integrating AI into writing instruction.
کلیدواژه‌ها
Written Corrective Feedback؛ Direct feedback؛ Metalinguistic feedback؛ Artificial Intelligence؛ Passive causative

مراجع
^{Abdi Tabari, M., Kushki, A., & Wang, Y. (2025). Comparing the effects of teacher- and AI-mediated corrective feedback on accuracy, complexity, and quality in L2 written narratives. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2025.2561608} ^{Ajabshir, Z. F., & Ebadi, S. (2023). The effects of automatic writing evaluation and teacher-focused feedback on CALF measures and overall quality of L2 writing across different genres. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-023-00201-9} ^{Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.} ^{https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016} ^{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} ^{DeKeyser, R. M. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Lawrence Erlbaum.} ^{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} ^{Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 223–236.} ^{https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002073} ^{Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023} ^{Ellis, R. (2015). Form-focused instruction and the measurement of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 417 441). John Benjamins.} ^{Ellis, N. (2015). Implicit AND explicit language learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 3-23). John Benjamins.} ^{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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0} ^{Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023). ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. Relc Journal, 54(2), 537-550. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231162868} ^{Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x} ^{Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.} ^{https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034} ^{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/10.1017/S0261444823000393} ^{Mehrara, E., Ajideh, P., Zohrabi, M., Yaghubi Notash, M., & Hadidi, Y. (2025). Cultivating Opportunities: The Role of Guided Mobile-Assisted Task Performance on Reactivity to Mistake and L2 Willingness to Communicate. Journal of Linguistic Studies: Theory and Practice, 4(3), 43-66.‎ https://doi.org/10.22034/jls.2025.142706.1194} ^{Muñoz, B. C. M., Nassaji, H., & Carrillo, F. I. B. (2025). ChatGPT-generated versus human direct corrective feedback on L2 writing. System, 134, 103805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103805} ^{Rahmani, P., Zoghi, M., & Davatgari Asl, H. (2025). Ongoing application of peer and self-Assessment: A mixed-Methods study. Journal of Linguistic Studies: Theory and Practice.} ^{https://doi.org/10.22034/jls.2025.143340.1231} ^{Ranalli, J., Link, S., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2017). Automated writing evaluation for formative assessment of second language writing: Investigating the accuracy and usefulness of feedback as part of argument-based validation. Educational Psychology, 37(1), 8–25.} ^{https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1136407} ^{Rezazadeh, M., Tavakoli, M., & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2015). The effects of direct corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on EFL learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge of English definite and indefinite articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 7(16), 113–146.} ^{https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_17206.html} ^{Saricaoglu, A. (2019). The impact of automated feedback on L2 learners’ written causal explanations. ReCALL, 31(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401800006X} ^{Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011} ^{Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131.} ^{https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029} ^{Shiyao, W. (2021). Understanding the effects of automated writing corrective feedback on L2 writing accuracy across proficiency levels. Frontiers in Educational Research, 4(11), 94–98.} ^{https://doi.org/10.25236/FER.2021.041117} ^{Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135–145.} ^{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.017} ^{Teng, F. M. (2024). A systematic review of ChatGPT for English as a foreign language writing: Opportunities, challenges, and recommendations. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 6(3), 36-57. https://doi.org/10.58304/ijts.20240304} ^{Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x} ^{Urzúa, C. A. C., Ranjan, R., Saavedra, E. E. M., Badilla-Quintana, M. G., Lepe-Martínez, N., & Philominraj, A. (2025). Effects of AI-assisted feedback via generative chat on academic writing in higher education students: A systematic review of the literature. Education Sciences, 15(10), 1396.} ^{https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101396} ^{Wang, D. (2024). Teacher-versus AI-generated (Poe application) corrective feedback and language learners’ writing anxiety, complexity, fluency, and accuracy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 25(3), 37-56. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7646} ^{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), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03543-y} ^{Yang, Y., Hussin, S., & Hashim, H. (2025). Revising with intelligence: ChatGPT feedback and its impact on EFL students’ revision and self-efficacy. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(7), 352–367.} ^{https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i7.9845} ^{Zhang, Y. (2024). Incorporating ChatGPT as an automated written corrective feedback tool into L2 writing class. Journal of Language Teaching, 4(4), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.54475/jlt.2024.024} ^{Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004}
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 68 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 54

سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. طراحی و پیاده سازی از سیناوب

پیوندهای مفید

پیوندهای مفید

اخبار و اعلانات

آمار

Effects of AI-Generated Direct and Metalinguistic Written Corrective Feedback on Grammatical Accuracy: Evidence from the English Passive Causative