Integrating Corrective Feedback in EFL Classrooms Harmonizing Traditional Pedagogies with Digital Innovations
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In contemporary language education, integrating traditional pedagogies with digital innovations signifies a pivotal shift in teaching and learning practices. This synergy enhances language acquisition by blending established instructional methods with the precision and adaptability contributed by emerging digital technologies, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools. Despite the challenges in fostering fluency in English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms, corrective feedback (CF) remains a cornerstone of effective language learning. This study explores the intersection between traditional corrective feedback methodologies and the potential of artificial intelligence-powered technologies, specifically examining the impact of immediate feedback and oral grammar correction provided by artificial intelligence language assistants, focusing on Grammarly as a case study. Employing a quasi-experimental design, this research compares the effectiveness of traditional corrective feedback with artificial intelligence-mediated feedback, analyzing the outcomes using statistical methods in SPSS. The findings aim to contribute useful implications and valuable insights into the educational advantages of integrating artificial intelligence technologies in language classrooms.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
References
Awalin, A. S., Iftanti, E., & Umami, M. S. M. (2023). Students’ perceptions on the impact of artificial intelligence on English grammar learning. International Conference on Education, 169–174. Retrieved from https://jurnalfaktarbiyah.iainkediri.ac.id/index.php/proceedings/article/view/1788
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the Linguistic Accuracy Level of Advanced L2 Writers with Written Corrective Feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
Bitchener, J. (2019). The intersection between SLA and feedback research. Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 85-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.007
Chen, C.F. E. & Cheng, W.Y. E. (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language Learning & Technology, (12)2, 94–112. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44145
Chong, S. W. (2019). A systematic review of written corrective feedback research in ESL/EFL contexts. Language Education & Assessment, 2(2), 57-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29140/lea.v2n2.138 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29140/lea.v2n2.138
Chou, H. C., Moslehpour, M., & Yang, C.Y. (2016). My Access and Writing Error Corrections of EFL College Pre-intermediate Students. International Journal of Education, 8(1), 144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v8i1.9209 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v8i1.9209
Cotos, E. (2011). Potential of Automated Writing Evaluation Feedback. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 420–459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.420-459 DOI: https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.420-459
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the Effects of Form-Focussed Instruction on L2 Acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 18-41. Doi: 10.1075/aila.19.04ell DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.04ell
Fahmi, M. A., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2021). EFL students’ perception on the use of Grammarly and teacher feedback. JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 6(1), 18–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v6i1.849 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v6i1.849
Ferster, B., Hammond, T. C., Alexander, C., & Lyman, H. (2012). Automated formative assessment as a tool to scaffold student documentary writing. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 23(1), 21-39.
Leow, R. P. (2020). L2 writing-to-learn. Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas, 56, 95-118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.05leo
Leow, R. P., & Suh, B. R. (2021). Theoretical perspectives on L2 writing, written corrective feedback, and language learning in individual writing conditions. In The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 9-21). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429199691-3
Leow, R. P. (2023). Written corrective feedback and the language curriculum: Theory, research, curricular issues, and the researcher-teacher interface. Feedback Res Second Lang, 1(1), 109-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32038/frsl.2023.01.07
Li, X., & Huang, H. (2017). A Case Study in Corrective Feedback in a Secondary Chinese Language Classroom in Australia. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(6), 1032. doi: 10.17507/jltr.0806.02
Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006
Grammarly. (2020, January 1).
Retrieved from https://support.grammarly.com/hc/enus/categories/115000018611-About-Grammarly
Liu, X., & Peng, L. (2020). A Study of Corrective Feedback in Integrated English Classrooms. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11(5), 825. DOI: 10.17507/jltr.1105.19 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1105.19
Li, X., & Huang, H. (2017). A Case Study in Corrective Feedback in a Secondary Chinese Language Classroom in Australia. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(6), 1032. DOI: 10.17507/jltr.0806.02
Li, X., & Huang, H. (2017). A Case Study in Corrective Feedback in a Secondary Chinese Language Classroom in Australia. Journal Of Language Teaching and Research, 8(6), 1032. DOI: 10.17507/jltr.0806.02 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0806.02
Lyster, R. and L. Ranta. 1997. ‘Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19/1: 37–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
Nadif, B., & Benattabou, D. (2021). Rethinking the insights from good language learner studies: Moroccan learners of EFL as a case study. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 4(3), 61-73. DOI: 10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.3.7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.3.7
- Nadif, B. & Bidari, S. (2023). Advanced tools in The EFL classroom: Friend or foe for novice teachers. The Journal of Quality in Education, 13(21), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.37870/joqie.v13i21.336 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37870/joqie.v13i21.336
Nadif, B., & Fayzullaevna, T. F. (2024). Unleashing Potential: Thriving with Efficient Autonomous Learning. Comparative Linguistics, Translation and Literary Studies, 1(3), 255-264.
Nassaji, H. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of interactional feedback for L2 acquisition: Issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 53(1), 3-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000375 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000375
O’Neill, R., & Russell, A. (2019). Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3795 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3795
Ranalli, J. (2018). Automated written corrective feedback: how well can students make use of it? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 653–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994
Roscoe, R. D., Wilson, J., Johnson, A. C., & Mayra, C. R. (2017). Presentation, expectations, and experience: Sources of student perceptions of automated writing evaluation. Computers in Human Behaviour, 70, 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.076 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.076
Rkiki, A., & Sakale, S. (2025). Digital learning and corrective feedback: Analysing moroccan in-service EFL teachers’ beliefs. Frontiers in English Language and Linguistics, 2(1), 01-09. https://doi.org/10.32996/fell.2025.2.1.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32996/fell.2025.2.1.1
Sakale, S. (2019). The Important Role of Teachers’ Feedback during Speaking Activities in Moroccan Classes. Arab World English Journal, 10 (3) 344-351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no3.24
Sheen, Y. (2007) ‘The effect of focused written corrective feedback and Language Aptitude on ESL Learners’ acquisition of articles’, TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), pp. 255–283. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
Sheen, Y. & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective Feedback in Language Teaching. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge, 593-610.
Stevenson, M., & Phakitu, A. (2014). The Effects of Computer-Generated Feedback on the Quality of Writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 51-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007
Watcharapol, W., et al. (2023). Preferences for Oral Corrective Feedback: Are Language Proficiency, First Language, Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety, and Enjoyment Involved? Journal of Language and Education, 9(1 (33)), 172-184. DOI: 10.17323/jle.2023.16141 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.16141
Wilson, J. (2016). Associated effects of automated essay evaluation software on growth in writing quality for students with and without disabilities. Reading and Writing, 30(4), 691-718. DOI: 10.1007/s11145-016-9695-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9695-z
Wilson, J., & Andrada, G. N. (2016). Using automated feedback to improve writing quality: opportunities and challenges. In Y. Rosen, S. Ferrara & M. Mosharraf (Eds,), Handbook of research on technology tools for real-world skill development (pp. 678-703). IGI Global: US. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-9441-5.ch026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9441-5.ch026