Human, AI-generated, and hybrid corrective feedback in L2 argumentative writing: Effects on learner engagement and writing quality

Sindia.T; Vijayakumar Selvaraj; Dr. A. Sathikulameen; Akem Solange Ojong

doi:10.32674/0nwtbv54

Authors

Sindia B.S.Abdur Rahman Crescent Institute of Science and Technology https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6208-9006
Vijayakumar Selvaraj B.S.Abdur Rahman Crescent Institute of Science and Technology
Sathikulameen The New College https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9633-7585
Akem Solange Ojong Drexel University https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9590-3391

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32674/0nwtbv54

Keywords:

AI-generated feedback, argumentative writing, learner engagement, quasi-experimental design, revision quality

Abstract

This quasi-experimental study investigated the differential effects of human teacher feedback (HTF), AI-generated feedback (AIGF), and hybrid feedback (HF) on learner engagement and argumentative writing quality among 120 undergraduate ESL students across an eight-week intervention. Engagement (behavioural, cognitive, emotional) was measured via a purpose-built questionnaire and revision-tracking logs; writing quality was scored on a five-dimension analytic rubric. Repeated-measures ANOVA and multiple regression showed that HF was associated with the greatest improvement in writing quality (η²p = .24), HTF with the highest proportion of higher-order revisions, and AIGF with the highest revision frequency. Hybrid feedback condition membership was the strongest predictor of writing-quality improvement, followed by cognitive engagement. These findings have implications for AI-integrated writing instruction in higher education.

Author Biographies

Sindia, B.S.Abdur Rahman Crescent Institute of Science and Technology

Sindia is a Research Scholar at the B. S. Abdur Rahman Crescent Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, India, in the Department of English. She is interested in second language writing, corrective feedback, and the application of artificial intelligence in language education. She has presented her work at national and international forums on applied linguistics and educational technology, and her current doctoral work focuses on learner engagement and writing development in AI-mediated feedback environments. She is dedicated to connecting theory and practice in L2 writing instruction and is actively seeking ways to enhance writing instruction in higher education.
Sathikulameen , The New College

Dr. A. Sathikulameen is an Assistant Professor of English at The New College, Chennai, India. His areas of research include English language teaching, applied linguistics, and second language writing instruction. He has actively taught and mentored undergraduate and postgraduate students in the field of English studies and continues to be interested in the pedagogical implications of feedback in the field of language learning. He is a scholar who has had a wide range of publications in classroom-based innovations and in the field of applied linguistics research.
Akem Solange Ojong, Drexel University

Akem Solange Ojong is a PhD candidate at the School of Education at Drexel University, Pennsylvania, USA. Her areas of research are second language writing, educational technology, and learning environments with artificial intelligence. Her doctoral focus is on international and comparative aspects of language education, and her broader interests include the study of the impact of new technologies on teaching and learning in different educational and linguistic settings. Her writing research and writing support research are cross-cultural and interdisciplinary.

References

Bai, L., & Hu, G. (2017). In the face of fallible AWE feedback: How do students respond? Educational Psychology, 37(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1223275 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1223275

Brown, D., Liu, Q., & Norouzian, R. (2026). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback in developing L2 accuracy: A Bayesian meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 30(3), 1357–1389. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221147374 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221147374

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9

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. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/44145 DOI: https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/44145

Cheng, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2025). Investigating synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback in a computer-assisted environment: EFL learners’ linguistic performance and perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 38(7), 1687–1716. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2315070 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2315070

Cotos, E. (2023). Automated feedback on writing. In O. Kruse, C. Rapp, C. M. Anson, K. Benetos, E. Cotos, A. Devitt, & A. Shibani (Eds.), Digital writing technologies in higher education (pp. 347–364). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36033-6_22 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36033-6_22

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023

Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.005

Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

Guo, X. (2025). Facilitator or thinking inhibitor: Understanding the role of ChatGPT-generated written corrective feedback in language learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(5), 3526–3544. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2445177 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2445177

Hamano-Bunce, D. (2025). 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, 29(6), 2460–2479. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221127643 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221127643

Hartshorn, K. J., & Pack, A. (2026). The effects of artificial intelligence-based dynamic written corrective feedback on second language writing and user sentiment. RELC Journal, 57(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882251405498 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882251405498

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399

Imran, M., Almusharraf, N., & Shehzad, K. (2026). Artificial intelligence in school language education: A systematic review of trends, challenges, and future directions. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 15(6), 47–78. https://doi.org/10.32674/w506dk33 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32674/w506dk33

Koltovskaia, S. (2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44, 100450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450

Lee, I. (2014). Feedback in writing: Issues and challenges. Assessing Writing, 19, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.009

Li, S., Ou, L., & Lee, I. (2026). The timing of corrective feedback in second language learning. Language Teaching, 59(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444824000478 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444824000478

Link, S., Mehrzad, M., & 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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323

Ma, X., Zhang, C., & Lee, I. (2026). L2 learners’ engagement with AI-generated feedback on writing. Assessing Writing, 68, Article 101020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2026.101020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2026.101020

Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003

Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00046-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00046-7

Rassaei, E. (2026). The interplay between corrective feedback timing and foreign language anxiety in L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 30(3), 1432–1455. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231195141 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231195141

Roothooft, H., & Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2026). Students’ beliefs about written corrective feedback in two foreign language contexts. Language Awareness, 35(2), 511–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2025.2522107 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2025.2522107

Sampah, S. N. A., Nabang, M., Krampa, E. K., Issah, M., Koduah, F., Essel, H. B., & Adu-Agyem, J. (2026). Generative AI competence and student engagement in higher education: Mediating roles of utilization, autonomy, and formal learning. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 15(2), 109–146. https://doi.org/10.32674/3s3cx241 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32674/3s3cx241

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129

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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344023000265

Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, 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

Suzuki, W., & Saito, R. (2026). Cognitive and affective reactions to written corrective feedback, type of linguistic items, and second language writing accuracy improvement: An exploratory study. Language Awareness, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2025.2611884 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2025.2611884

Tang, J., Li, P., & Luo, R. (2026). Teacher feedback vs. AI-assisted peer feedback in L2 writing: A quasi-experimental study in a Chinese university. PLOS ONE, 21(6), Article e0345976. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0345976 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0345976

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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x

Uğraş, H., Uğraş, M., Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2024). ChatGPT-supported education in primary schools: The potential of ChatGPT for sustainable practices. Sustainability, 16(22), Article 9855. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229855 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229855

Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2008). Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800701771580 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800701771580

Zacharis, G., & Papadakis, S. (2025). Can AI grade like a human? Validity, reliability, and fairness in university coursework assessment. Educational Process: International Journal, 19, Article e2025591. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2025.19.591 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2025.19.591

Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586773 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3586773

Zhai, N., & Ma, X. (2022). Automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback: a systematic investigation of college students’ acceptance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2817–2842. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1897019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1897019

Zhang, Z. (2017). Student engagement with computer-generated feedback: A case study. ELT Journal, 71(3), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw089 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw089