AI Corrective Feedback and Thai EFL Writing: A Literature-Based Review
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Aim: The rapid development of artificial intelligence has created new opportunities for providing corrective feedback in English as a Foreign Language writing instruction. In Thai higher education, EFL learners continue to face difficulties in academic writing, particularly in grammar, vocabulary, coherence, organization, and academic conventions. At the same time, teachers often experience workload and time constraints that limit their ability to provide timely and individualized feedback. This study reviewed literature on Thai EFL writing difficulties, corrective feedback, and AI-assisted feedback to examine the pedagogical potential of AI-generated corrective feedback in EFL writing development.
Materials and Methods: This study employed a literature-based review approach. Relevant studies were retrieved from Scopus, ERIC, and Google Scholar. The selection criteria focused on peer-reviewed publications related to EFL writing, corrective feedback, automated writing evaluation, and AI-assisted feedback, with emphasis on Thai and comparable EFL contexts. The selected studies were analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns in writing difficulties, feedback practices, AI applications, and pedagogical limitations.
Results: The review indicates that Thai EFL university students commonly experience challenges in grammatical accuracy, lexical choice, coherence, organization, and academic writing conventions. AI-generated corrective feedback can support writing development by providing immediate, consistent, and individualized responses, especially for surface-level language errors. However, AI feedback remains limited in addressing higher-order writing concerns, such as argument development, rhetorical appropriateness, discourse coherence, and context-sensitive meaning. The findings also show that teacher mediation is essential to help students interpret AI feedback critically and apply it effectively during revision.
Conclusion: AI-assisted corrective feedback can serve as a valuable complement to teacher feedback in Thai EFL writing classrooms. When integrated through a blended feedback approach, AI tools can promote frequent revision, learner autonomy, and individualized support while reducing teacher workload. However, human guidance remains necessary for discourse-level feedback, academic judgment, and contextual interpretation. Future empirical research should examine the combined effects of AI-generated, teacher-provided, and peer feedback on Thai university students’ writing performance and feedback literacy.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright and License
Copyright of all articles published in the Journal of Education and Learning Reviews (JELR) is retained by the author(s).
All articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Users may read, download, copy, distribute, and share the content for non-commercial purposes with proper attribution.
Modification, adaptation, or commercial use of the content is not permitted.
License details: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
References
Abas, I. R., & Bakir, A. (2013). Investigating Saudi EFL learners’ writing problems: A case study in a Saudi university. English Language Teaching, 6(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n3p1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n3p1
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/358302
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Chi, F. (1999). Teacher commentary on student writing: Developing a dialogue. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–21.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Longman.
Creswell, J. W. (2000). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Prentice Hall.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339–368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141
Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ghabool, N. (2012). Investigating writing difficulties among Iranian EFL learners (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Tabriz.
Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). Guilford Press.
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Automated writing evaluation: Past, present, and future. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.10.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.10.001
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). The scope of the writing assessment. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing writing (pp. 1–16). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1075-2935(02)00029-6
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hedge, T. (1988). Writing. Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.
Jaehnig, W. B., & Miller, M. L. (2007). Feedback types and student performance: Positive and negative feedback in educational contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 327–341.
Kao, S. M., & Reynolds, R. (2017). The effects of explicit instruction on Taiwanese EFL students’ writing revision. TESOL Journal, 8(1), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.292 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.292
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Leite, A., & Blanco, S. A. (2020). Effects of human vs. automatic feedback on students’ understanding of AI concepts and programming style. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 44–50). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366921 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366921
Moore, N. S., & MacArthur, C. A. (2016). Student use of automated essay evaluation feedback. Journal of Writing Research, 8(1), 149–177. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.06 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.05
Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto).
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524490
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House.
Pawapatcharaudom, P. (2007). An investigation of Thai students’ English language writing difficulties in international programs (Master’s thesis, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi).
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667190
Roscoe, R. D., Allen, L. K., Weston, J. L., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2017). The writing pal: Natural language processing for automated writing instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000127 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000127
Rostanti Toba, R., Noor, W. N., & Sanu, L. O. (2019). The current issues of Indonesian EFL students’ writing skills: Ability, problem, and reason in writing comparison and contrast essay. Dinamika Ilmu, 19(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.21093/di.v19i1.1506 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21093/di.v19i1.1506
Rostanti Toba, R., Noor, W. N., & Sanu, L. O. (2019). Students’ writing difficulties and the teaching of writing in EFL classrooms. Journal of English Education, 4(2), 103–115.
Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2020). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed.). Pearson.
Shafiee Rad, H., Alipour, R., & Jafarpour, A. (2023). Using artificial intelligence to foster students’ writing feedback literacy, engagement, and outcome: A case of Wordtune application. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(9), 5020–5040. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2208170 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2208170
Steiss, J., Tate, T. P., Graham, S., Cruz, J., Hebert, M., Wang, J., Moon, Y., Tseng, W., Warschauer, M., & Olson, C. B. (2024). Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback on students’ writing. Learning and Instruction, 91, 101894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894
Straub, R. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91–119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58680/rte19973873
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. McGraw-Hill.
Walsh, A. (2010). Writing skills: The importance of writing in education. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 45–54.
Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr190oa DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr190oa
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732997
Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (Eds.). (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. Prentice Hall.
Wilson, J., & Roscoe, R. D. (2020). Automated writing evaluation and feedback: Multiple metrics of efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(1), 87–125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119830764
Yang, H., Gao, C., & Shen, H. (2023). Learner interaction with, and response to, AI-programmed automated writing evaluation feedback in EFL writing: An exploratory study. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 3837–3858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11991-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11991-3
