Beyond the Teacher’s Red Pen: The Comparative Efficacy of AI-Based and Manual Corrective Feedback on EFL Students' Grammatical Accuracy

Authors

  • Salamun universitas Kiai Abdulllah Faqih Gresik, Indonesia
  • Dwi Julianto Universitas Kutai Kartanegara Tenggarong, Indonesia
  • Muhammad Lukman Adha Universitas Kutai Kartanegara Tenggarong, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31538/cjotl.v6i1.2726

Keywords:

Automated Corrective Feedback (ACF), Artificial Intelligence in Education, EFL Writing, Grammatical Accuracy, Hybrid Intelligence

Abstract

Achieving grammatical accuracy in academic writing remains a persistent challenge for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students, often constrained by the logistical limitations and delayed nature of traditional instructor-led feedback. While Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers a potential solution, empirical evidence comparing its instructional efficiency against human correction remains inconclusive. This study aims to investigate the comparative efficacy of AI-based Automated Corrective Feedback (ACF) versus traditional Manual Corrective Feedback (MCF) in improving grammatical accuracy. Employing a quasi-experimental design with a non-equivalent pretest-posttest control group, the research involved 60 undergraduate students at Universitas Kiai Abdullah Faqih, Indonesia. Participants were assigned to an Experimental Group utilizing Grammarly (N=30) and a Control Group receiving coded manual feedback (N=30) over a 12-week intervention. Grammatical accuracy was measured using the Error-Free T-unit ratio. The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) results revealed that while both modalities yielded improvements, the AI-assisted group (M=84.20) significantly outperformed the manual feedback group (M=73.50) with a large effect size (p < .001, partial eta squared = .425). These findings suggest that the immediacy and non-judgmental nature of AI feedback accelerate the mastery of surface-level grammar. The study advocates for a 'Hybrid Intelligence' model, where educators leverage AI to handle mechanical corrections, thereby allowing human instruction to focus on higher-order writing skills

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abeywickrama, K. R. W. K. (2021). Professional Development and ESL Teacher Quality: An Empirical Study. Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.4038/sljssh.v1i2.37

Barrot, J. S., Llenares, I. I., & del Rosario, L. S. (2021). Students’ Online Learning Challenges During the Pandemic and How They Cope with Them: The Case of the Philippines. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7321–7338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10589-x

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Written-Corrective-Feedback-in-Second-Language-Acquisition-and-Writing/Bitchener-Ferris/p/book/9780415872447

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

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.

Dizon, G. (2020). Evaluating intelligent personal assistants for L2 listening and speaking development. LANGUAGE LEARNING & TECHNOLOGY, 24(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/44705

Dizon, G., & Caguiat, M. R. (2023). Analyzing Sentiments of ChatGPT Users: Philippine Setting. International Conference on Computers in Education. https://doi.org/10.58459/icce.2023.4757

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2015). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

Ferris, D. (2011). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. University of Michigan Press.

Field, A. (2024). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. SAGE Publications.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1990). How To Design and Evaluate Research in Education. Order Department, McGraw Hill Publishing Co.

Gebremariam, H. T. (2024). Exploring the Effects of Written Corrective Feedback Types on Grammatical Accuracy in L2 Writing: Evidence from Ethiopian High School Students. Sage Open, 14(3), 21582440241274331. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241274331

Godwin-Jones, R. (2022). Partnering with AI: Intelligent Writing Assistance and Instructed Language Learning. LANGUAGE LEARNING & TECHNOLOGY, 26(2), 5–24. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/73474

Guo, Q., Feng, R., & Hua, Y. (2022). How Effectively Can EFL Students Use Automated Written Corrective Feedback (AWCF) in Research Writing? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2312–2331. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1879161

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on Second Language Students’ Writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399

Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023). ChatGPT for Language Teaching and Learning. RELC Journal, 54(2), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231162868

Lee, Y.-J., Davis, R. O., & Choi, J.-I. (2025). Integrating Generative AI into EFL Writing: University Students’ Strategies and Perceptions. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 15(4), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/17545

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

Ranalli, J. (2021). L2 Student Engagement with Automated Feedback on Writing: Potential for Learning and Issues of Trust. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100816

Sanosi, A. B. (2022). The Impact of Automated Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Academic Writing Accuracy. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 10(2), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP2202301S

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

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), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7646

Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (2001). Second Language Development in Writing: Measures Offluency, Accuracy and Complexity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(3), 423–425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263101263050

Zhang, Z. (Victor), & Hyland, K. (2022). Fostering Student Engagement with Feedback: An Integrated Approach. Assessing Writing, 51, 100586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100586

Downloads

Published

2026-06-01

How to Cite

Salamun, Dwi Julianto, & Muhammad Lukman Adha. (2026). Beyond the Teacher’s Red Pen: The Comparative Efficacy of AI-Based and Manual Corrective Feedback on EFL Students’ Grammatical Accuracy. Chalim Journal of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.31538/cjotl.v6i1.2726

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 1 (2026): Teaching and Learning

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Salamun, Dwi Julianto, Muhammad Lukman Adha

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.