Feedback source (human tutor vs GPT-4) had no significant effect on ENL students' posttest writing scores¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? The between-subjects test showed no significant difference between the AI-feedback and human-tutor-feedback groups on posttest writing scores. → Escalante 2023
Evidence¶
Escalante 2023¶
Escalante, J., Pack, A., & Barrett, A. (2023). AI-generated feedback on writing: insights into efficacy and ENL student preference. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20:57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Between-subjects effect from the same RM-ANOVA in Study 1: "no significant difference between the EG and CG" (F = 0.241, p = 0.626, ηp2 = 0.005); group accounted for only 0.5% of variance.
"The test of between-subjects effects revealed no significant difference between the EG and CG (F = 0.241, p = 0.626, ηp2 = 0.005), indicating that the method of providing feedback (human tutor or AI) did not have a significant effect on students' posttest scores"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- ENL students were near-evenly split in preference between AI-generated and human tutor feedback — related
- AI-generated (GPT-4) feedback produced no greater linguistic progress than human tutor feedback among ENL students over six weeks — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- Students who preferred human tutor feedback cited face-to-face interaction, engagement, follow-up questions, and speaking practice — related
- Students perceived peer group feedback as contextually rich but sometimes subjective, and ChatGPT-4o feedback as more objective and well structured but occasionally lacking contextual sensitivity — related
- Teacher feedback produced larger first-task score gains that dropped 32.8% by the second task, while AI-assisted peer feedback gains remained stable (a learning-curve effect) — related
- Students who preferred AI feedback cited clarity, understandability, consistency, specificity, and 24/7 availability — related
- Reviews citing one randomised trial (Bastani et al. 2025) report that unrestricted GPT-4 access in high-school mathematics raised assisted practice performance but left students worse off after withdrawal — related
- Learners receiving ChatGPT-generated hints showed statistically significant learning gains compared to a no-hint control in an online mathematics tutoring experiment — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
feedback-source-no-posttest-effect-enl |
title |
Feedback source (human tutor vs GPT-4) had no significant effect on ENL students' posttest writing scores |
description |
Feedback source (human tutor vs GPT-4) had no significant effect on ENL students' posttest writing scores |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2023 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-15 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — escalante-2023 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.