PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 30, 2025International Journal of Applied Linguistics3 citationsOpen Access

Linguistic Analyses of Written Corrective Feedback for Chinese as a Second Language: ChatGPT Versus Human Teachers

View Full Paper
LZLing ZhangJXJingjing XuHNHoang Anh Nguyen

Key Points

  • ChatGPT offers better language accuracy in written corrective feedback, while human teachers excel in understanding student needs.
  • Qualitative and quantitative analyses of feedback illustrate unique strengths and weaknesses in AI compared to experienced educators.
  • While ChatGPT revises language effectively, it uses more difficult vocabulary, which may hinder comprehension for learners.
  • Assessment of writing feedback helps explore the roles of AI and human intelligence in second language acquisition.

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study conducted linguistic analyses of the written corrective feedback (WCF) for Chinese as a second language (CSL) provided by chat generative pre‐trained transformer (ChatGPT) and human teachers (including preservice teachers and senior teachers). An assessment framework was proposed, composed of two main domains of ‘language accuracy’ and ‘content expressivity’, which have further sub‐indices associated with measurable linguistic parameters. Both qualitative and quantitative data analyses were conducted on a self‐constructed Vietnamese CSL writing sample corpus. The qualitative analysis identified four features of ChatGPT compared with human teachers: (1) more word order changes; (2) more formal expressions used; (3) unsatisfactory inferencing ability; and (4) insufficient literacy skills. The results of quantitative analyses indicated ChatGPT tended to make unnecessary revisions and adopt more difficult vocabulary. Our overall data indicate that the WCF provided by ChatGPT is especially good in language accuracy (though occasionally inadequate knowledge of the Chinese language). In the domain of content expressivity, ChatGPT tends to provide feedback in more difficult vocabularies, which does not fully understand the real needs of CSL students. Our analytic framework and empirical data led to insightful discussions on AI and human intelligence in the context of second language teaching and learning.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Zhang et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/692b94261d383f2b2a37852dhttps://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.70053
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1The Challenges and Opportunities of AI-Assisted Writing: Developing AI Literacy for the AI Age2023 · 228 citations
  2. 2Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning1988 · 9,250 citations
  3. 3Design and evaluation of automated writing evaluation models: Relationships with writing in naturalistic settings2017 · 19 citations
  4. 4A commentary of GPT-3 in MIT Technology Review 20212021 · 210 citations
  5. 5Towards an Organic Approach to Investigating CAF in Instructed SLA: The Case of Complexity2009 · 1,249 citations