Scholarlink

<p>Generative AI (GenAI) tools, such as DeepSeek and ChatGPT, have gained popularity for providing efficient feedback to second language (L2) academic writers. However, their perceived impact on feedback literacy remains underexplored, particularly in terms of cognitive, behavioral, affective, and ethical dimensions. A survey of 16 L2 Chinese graduate students revealed that their primary uses of GenAI include grammar correction, linguistic refinement, and logical optimization. Further interviews and reflective reports showed that participants, while trusting GenAI to enhance fluency and coherence, expressed concerns about increased homogeneity and diminished critical thinking. Behaviorally, they perceived that well-defined feedback prompts helped generate actionable suggestions, though adoption varied. Emotionally, they appreciated the stress relief and immediacy of GenAI-generated feedback, though some expressed concerns about specific issues. Ethically, they recognized the need for critical evaluation of GenAI feedback to preserve academic integrity, showcasing their awareness of autonomy in the writing process. These findings shed light on L2 learners’ perceptions of feedback literacy with GenAI tools, offering insights for teaching and policymaking.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Exploring Feedback Literacy in L2 Students’ Academic Writing: Insights from their Reported Engagement with GenAl for Typical Revision Activities

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月19日

查看全文
  • Yaru Meng,
  • Yu Cui,
  • Xue Geng,
  • Yanqin Cao

摘要

Generative AI (GenAI) tools, such as DeepSeek and ChatGPT, have gained popularity for providing efficient feedback to second language (L2) academic writers. However, their perceived impact on feedback literacy remains underexplored, particularly in terms of cognitive, behavioral, affective, and ethical dimensions. A survey of 16 L2 Chinese graduate students revealed that their primary uses of GenAI include grammar correction, linguistic refinement, and logical optimization. Further interviews and reflective reports showed that participants, while trusting GenAI to enhance fluency and coherence, expressed concerns about increased homogeneity and diminished critical thinking. Behaviorally, they perceived that well-defined feedback prompts helped generate actionable suggestions, though adoption varied. Emotionally, they appreciated the stress relief and immediacy of GenAI-generated feedback, though some expressed concerns about specific issues. Ethically, they recognized the need for critical evaluation of GenAI feedback to preserve academic integrity, showcasing their awareness of autonomy in the writing process. These findings shed light on L2 learners’ perceptions of feedback literacy with GenAI tools, offering insights for teaching and policymaking.