Frontiers in Educational Research, 2026, 9(7); doi: 10.25236/FER.2026.090722.
Hongxia Li1, Xin Tuo2
1Xi'an Innovation College of Yan'an University, Xi'an, China
2Xi'an Innovation College of Yan'an University, Xi'an, China
This mixed-methods study compares AI-assisted feedback and teacher feedback in improving EFL learners' writing accuracy. Sixty intermediate Chinese university EFL learners were assigned to an AI group and a Teacher group. Data came from pre-/post-tests, error analysis, interviews, and journals. Both feedback types significantly improved overall accuracy, with no significant group difference. AI feedback was stronger for surface-level errors, whereas teacher feedback was stronger for deep-level errors such as coherence and word choice. Learners valued AI for immediacy but preferred teachers for contextual relevance, emotional support, and complex explanation. The study supports a blended feedback model guided by AI literacy and teacher mediation.
AI-Assisted Feedback, Teacher Feedback, EFL Writing, Writing Accuracy, Written Corrective Feedback, Mixed-Methods Study
Hongxia Li, Xin Tuo. AI-Assisted Feedback versus Teacher Feedback in Improving EFL Learners' Writing Accuracy. Frontiers in Educational Research (2026), Vol. 9, Issue 7: 167-173. https://doi.org/10.25236/FER.2026.090722.
[1] Ferris, D. R. (2006). Corrective feedback in second language writing. University of Michigan Press.
[2] Han, F., & Hyland, K. (2015). Written corrective feedback in L2 writing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.004
[3] Lee, J. F. (2019). Written corrective feedback in L2 writing: Contexts, issues, and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 265–286. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190519000089
[4] Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
[5] Kim, Y. (2014). Teacher feedback in EFL writing classrooms: A case study of Korean secondary school teachers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(3), 587–594. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.3.587-594
[6] Hyland, K. (2025). EFL teachers and feedback fatigue: AI to the rescue? ELT Journal, 79(2), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccae052
[7] Kasneci, G., et al. (2023). Large language models in EFL education: Opportunities and challenges. Computers & Education, 201, 104678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104678
[8] Yu, H., Li, J., & Zhang, Y. (2025). Generative AI vs. teachers: Feedback quality, feedback uptake, and revision. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 47(2), 113–137. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2025.47.06
[9] Lim, J. M., & Go, C. (2025). Integrating ChatGPT into teacher feedback: Practical insights for L2 writing instruction. TESL-EJ, 29(3), 1–18.
[10] Wang, D. (2024). Teacher- versus AI-generated (Poe application) corrective feedback and language learners’ writing anxiety, complexity, fluency, and accuracy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 25(3), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7734
[11] Webb, S., & Şen Aydın, Z. (2025). Generative AI in English language teaching: Students’ voices, teachers’ reactions, and needs. U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1488670.pdf
[12] Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.
[13] Poh, S. K., & Lee, I. (2026). Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for feedback in school writing: Friend or foe? TESL-EJ, 29(4), 1–20.
[14] Mahmoud, A. (2025). AI powered ELT: Instructors’ transformative roles and opportunities. PLOS ONE, 19(7), e0324910. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324910
[15] Joo, M., Lee, J., & Park, H. (2025). The impact of AI feedback efficacy on English writing achievement. Journal of Applied Information Science, 26(5), 456–472. https://doi.org/10.1000/jais.2025.265.456
[16] Kohnke, L., Zhang, L., & Doe, C. (2024). The differential impact of AI tools among EFL university learners: A process writing approach. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 23(5), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.5.7
[17] Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
[18] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
[19] AERA. (2018). Ethical standards of the American Educational Research Association. American Educational Research Association.
[20] Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01