RELC Journal· 2025Q1
Generative AI and L2 Written Feedback Studies: A Scoping Review
- 45citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2025year
Short summary
A scoping review of 51 studies since 2022 reveals that most research on Generative AI (GenAI) for L2 written feedback focuses on improvements in writing quality and user perceptions, using methods like revision analysis and surveys.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- 51 studies published since 2022 on GenAI for L2 written feedback were reviewed.
- Most studies focus on improvements in writing quality and user perceptions of GenAI feedback.
- Common research methods include revision analysis, pre/post-writing tests, and surveys.
- Results show improvements in writing quality, mixed perceptions, and varied feedback uptake compared to human feedback.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Since ChatGPT's emergence, extensive research has explored the role of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in delivering written feedback (WF), encompassing diverse aims, methodologies and findings. This includes studies examining second language (L2) contexts in which such feedback is used, although, to date, no attempt has been made to synthesize these studies for cumulative knowledge building. To provide clarity on the state-of-the-art on GenAI-influenced L2 WF studies, this Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-informed scoping review article explores a dataset of 51 such studies taken from Social Sciences Citation Index/Emerging Sources Citation Index-indexed publications since 2022. Two researchers manually coded these studies for data regarding publication outlets, country/region and L2 focus, research aims, research methods, findings and identified (or author-disclosed) limitations. Findings reveal that most studies address improvements to writing quality arising from GenAI produced feedback, and/or student and teachers’ perceptions of such feedback. A diverse set of methods include revision analysis, pre-tests/post-tests of writing quality and quantitative surveys. Results cover improvements in writing quality or skills, mixed perceptions, and varied feedback uptake and revision behaviours particularly when comparing artificial intelligence and human feedback. We close by identifying gaps in cumulative knowledge and suggesting directions for future research.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. RELC Journal, 2025 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Language and Linguistics
Language and LinguisticsArts and Humanities