ChatGPT-Assisted Feedback and Students' Grammatical Accuracy in Writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v14i2.11682Keywords:
ChatGPT-assisted feedback, grammatical accuracy, EFL writing, corrective feedback, mixed-methods researchAbstract
Generative artificial intelligence is increasingly integrated into English language learning, yet empirical evidence on its effectiveness for improving grammatical accuracy among Indonesian senior high school EFL learners remains limited; most existing studies have focused on university students or on general perceptions rather than on grammatical accuracy as a specific, measurable outcome. This gap motivated the present study, which investigated the effectiveness of ChatGPT-assisted feedback in improving eleventh-grade students' grammatical accuracy in writing and explored their learning experiences during AI-assisted revision. Grammatical accuracy was selected as the primary outcome because it is one of the most persistent and measurable challenges in EFL writing and underlies clear written communication. An embedded mixed-methods design combined a quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test control-group design with a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. Sixty-six eleventh-grade students at SMAN 2 Parepare participated; the experimental group (n = 33) received ChatGPT-assisted feedback across four writing-revision sessions, while the control group (n = 33) received conventional classroom feedback. The experimental group significantly outperformed the control group on the independent post-test (t(64) = 5.69, p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.40), and questionnaire and interview findings indicated that ChatGPT-assisted feedback enhanced grammar awareness, writing improvement, motivation, and revision behaviour, while also encouraging critical evaluation of AI-generated suggestions rather than passive acceptance. These findings suggest that ChatGPT is an effective supplementary formative-feedback tool for developing grammatical accuracy rather than a replacement for teacher-led instruction. For EFL teachers, the results indicate that structured, teacher-mediated AI feedback can be integrated into writing classes without displacing the teacher's pedagogical role. The study contributes empirical evidence for embedding structured AI-assisted feedback into EFL writing pedagogy at the secondary level, and offers a replicable model for classrooms facing large enrolments and limited time for individualized correction.
References
Bani, M., & Masruddin, M. (2021). Development of Android-based harmonic oscillation pocket book for senior high school students. JOTSE: Journal of Technology and Science Education, 11(1), 93-103.
Coupland, J. (Ed.). (2000). Small talk. London, England: Longman.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–952. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5
Furwana, D., Muin, F. R., Zainuddin, A. A., & Mulyani, A. G. (2024). Unlocking the Potential: Exploring the Impact of Online Assessment in English Language Teaching. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 12(1), 653-662.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet, 4(1), 1–37.
Herring, S. C. (2019). The coevolution of computer-mediated communication and computer-mediated discourse analysis: New insights and future directions. In P. Bou-Franch & P. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (Eds.), Analyzing digital discourse: New insights and future directions (pp. 25–67). Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92663-6_2
House, J., & Kádár, D. Z. (2022). Analysing phatic interaction through speech acts – A discussion note. Acta Linguistica Academica, 69(3), 381–391. doi:10.1556/2062.2022.00533
Husnaini, H. (2022). Development of Self Esteem-Oriented Micro Teaching Materials for IAIN Palopo English Education Students. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 10(1), 538-560.
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). MIT Press.
Jucker, A. H. (2021). Methodological issues in digital conversation analysis. Discourse, Context & Media, 42, 100520. doi:10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100520
Koivisto, A., Vepsäläinen, H., & Virtanen, M. T. (Eds.). (2023). Conversation analytic perspectives to digital interaction: Practices, resources, and affordances. Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Literature Society. doi:10.21435/sflin.22
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning (pp. 296–336). Kegan Paul.
Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Association of Internet Researchers.
Masruddin, M., & Nasriandi, N. (2022). Lexical and Syntactical Errors Performed by Junior High School Student in Writing Descriptive Text. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 10(1), 1094-1100.
Meredith, J. (2019). Conversation analysis and online interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(3), 241–256. doi:10.1080/08351813.2019.1631040
Meredith, J., Giles, D., & Stommel, W. (Eds.). (2021). Analysing digital interaction. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-64922-7
Meredith, J., & Stokoe, E. (2014). Repair: Comparing Facebook 'chat' with spoken interaction. Discourse & Communication, 8(2), 181–207. doi:10.1177/1750481313510815
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. doi:10.2307/412243
Sarjanoja, A.-H., Isomursu, M., & Häkkilä, J. (2013). Small talk with Facebook: Phatic communication in social media. In AcademicMindTrek '13: Proceedings of the International Conference on Making Sense of Converging Media (pp. 118–121). ACM. doi:10.1145/2523429.2523449
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511791208
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.
Tagg, C. (2015). Exploring digital communication: Language in action. Routledge.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dewi Fortuna Nawir, Rafia’ah Nur, Ammang Latifa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under an Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See the Effect of Open Access)
