Integrate AI feedback as a supportive resource within process-oriented drafting cycles, with explicit guidance on critical evaluation¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

The article's procedure: students receive explicit genre instruction, draft independently, submit to GROK for AI feedback, critically evaluate suggestions, and revise into a second draft, with the instructor providing supplementary feedback when necessary. Students were told AI feedback "should be used as a supportive learning resource rather than a replacement for their own critical judgment during the revision process." This gave all participants sustained hands-on experience before reflecting on perceptions.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Free and equal access to the AI tool for all students
• Instructor available for supplementary feedback to clarify misconceptions

Constraints¶

• AI was the primary formative feedback source; the instructor's role was supplementary, which students later found insufficient for individualized guidance

Target Learners¶

• undergraduate EFL students in academic writing courses

Target Learning Goals¶

• academic paragraph and essay writing, revision, linguistic accuracy and coherence

Affordances¶

• Sct Algorithmic Feedback Lens

Related Strategies¶

• Implement AI-peer integrated feedback as a standardized two-phase revision cycle with rubric-aligned prompting and instructor monitoring
• Collaborative Human-AI Revision Design embedding prompt engineering across drafting, feedback, and rewriting phases
• Classroom exercise cycle: select a task, formulate a baseline prompt, submit it to an LLM, then critically analyse the output before revising instructions
• Implement an AI-Peer-Teacher hybrid integrated feedback model staged across drafting, revision, and polishing phases
• Instructors integrating generative AI into writing-intensive courses should have students critically understand, access, prompt, vet and integrate AI-produced content
• Provide timely automated feedback through an AI chatbot during EFL writing practice
• Have students compare their peer-feedback revisions with AI-generated revisions to examine dialogic positioning

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Serpil, H., & Mor, M. K. (2026). Bounded reliance: A source credibility perspective on EFL students' engagement with AI-generated writing feedback. Journal of Language Pedagogy and Linguistics, 1(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.0.20.161/zenodo.22828386