Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/114336
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of Chinese and Bilingual Studies-
dc.creatorChen, Z-
dc.creatorZhu, X-
dc.creatorLu, Q-
dc.creatorWei, W-
dc.date.accessioned2025-07-25T03:28:16Z-
dc.date.available2025-07-25T03:28:16Z-
dc.identifier.issn0958-8221-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/114336-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherRoutledgeen_US
dc.subjectAI-generated feedbacken_US
dc.subjectChatGPTen_US
dc.subjectGenerative AIen_US
dc.subjectRevision strategiesen_US
dc.subjectUptakeen_US
dc.titleL2 students’ barriers in engaging with form and content-focused AI-generated feedback in revising their compositionsen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/09588221.2024.2422478-
dcterms.abstractProviding corrective feedback to second language (L2) writing constitutes a crucial digital affordance for AI-assisted writing systems. However, L2 writers’ revision strategies and obstacles to adopting AI-generated feedback, such as ChatGPT, remain unclear. Forty-five L2 students in a computer science program were tasked with seeking corrective feedback from ChatGPT for their argumentative essays, followed by an analysis of their revisions and rationale for feedback uptake strategies. The findings revealed that approximately 38% of the feedback was either explicitly argued (22%) or ignored (16%). Upon controlling for writing proficiency, participants statistically rejected a significantly higher proportion of feedback at the content level (e.g. evidence) than at the form level (e.g. grammar). Utilizing the Technology Acceptance Model, the reasons for rejecting or ignoring ChatGPT-generated feedback were examined through participants’ reflective data, focusing on two perspectives: inconvenience to use and unusefulness. Inconvenient factors included (1) overload feedback, (2) provision of general descriptions instead of specific error highlighting, and (3) repetitive and tedious comments. Themes related to unusefulness encompassed (1) misinterpretation of authors’ intentions, (2) lack of clarity and illustrative examples, and (3) extraneous and irrelevant feedback. The implications entail pedagogical strategies to mitigate barriers and foster feedback literacy in AI-assisted educational environment.-
dcterms.accessRightsembargoed accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationComputer assisted language learning, Published online: 06 Nov 2024, Latest Articles, https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2422478-
dcterms.isPartOfComputer assisted language learning-
dcterms.issued2024-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85209539850-
dc.identifier.eissn1744-3210-
dc.description.validate202507 bcch-
dc.identifier.FolderNumbera3943cen_US
dc.identifier.SubFormID51770en_US
dc.description.fundingSourceSelf-fundeden_US
dc.description.pubStatusEarly releaseen_US
dc.date.embargo2026-05-06en_US
dc.description.oaCategoryGreen (AAM)en_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Open Access Information
Status embargoed access
Embargo End Date 2026-05-06
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.