EXAMINING BING AI AS A SOLUTION TO EFL WRITING FEEDBACK CHALLENGES
Abstract
This study aims to examine Bing AI (also known as Bing Chat or Copilot) as a feedback agent, focusing on responses to predetermined prompts related to the content score of a research abstract. Two prompts were systematically input, resulting in extended non-corrective feedback from Bing AI which was sensitive to the prompt wording. This study was motivated by challenges in EFL writing feedback provision. Difficulties that teachers face, limitations of peer feedback, and potential drawbacks of Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) tools were briefly discussed. The results indicate that Bing AI is a promising feedback agent, offering insights into overcoming challenges in feedback provision, specifically in EFL writing instruction. The limitations of the study are also briefly discussed, as well as recommendations for future studies.
References
Abdul Rahman, N. A., Zulkornain, L. H., & Hamzah, N. H. (2022). Exploring Artificial Intelligence using Automated Writing Evaluation for Writing Skills. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 7(SI9), 547–553. https://doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v7iSI9.4304
Aben, J. E. J., Timmermans, A. C., Dingyloudi, F., Lara, M. M., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2022). What influences students’ peer-feedback uptake? Relations between error tolerance, feedback tolerance, writing self-efficacy, perceived language skills and peer-feedback processing. Learning and Individual Differences, 97, 102175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102175
Banister, C. (2023). Exploring peer feedback processes and peer feedback meta-dialogues with learners of academic and business English. Language Teaching Research, 27(3), 746–764. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820952222
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
Bolourchi, A., & Soleimani, M. (2021). The Impact of Peer Feedback on EFL Learners’ Writing Performance and Writing Anxiety. International Journal of Research in English Education, 6(1), 1–15.
Camarata, T., & Slieman, T. A. (2020). Improving Student Feedback Quality: A Simple Model Using Peer Review and Feedback Rubrics. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 7, 238212052093660. https://doi.org/10.1177/2382120520936604
Dodigovic, M., & Tovmasyan, A. (2021). Automated Writing Evaluation: The Accuracy of Grammarly’s Feedback on Form. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 3(2), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.46451/ijts.2021.06.06
Eliaçık, E. (2023, February 8). Microsoft’s ChatGPT-powered Bing is available for preview. DataConomy. https://dataconomy.com/2023/02/08/new-microsoft-bing-ai-waitlist-chatgpt-bard/
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “Grammar Correction” Debate in L2 Writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005
Gao, J. (2021). Exploring the Feedback Quality of an Automated Writing Evaluation System Pigai. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16(11), 322. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i11.19657
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
John, P., & Woll, N. (2020). Using Grammar Checkers in an ESL Context: An Investigation of Automatic Corrective Feedback. CALICO Journal, 37(2), 193–196. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.36523
Kerman, N. T., Noroozi, O., Banihashem, S. K., Karami, M., & Biemans, H. J. A. (2022). Online peer feedback patterns of success and failure in argumentative essay writing. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2093914
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The Effects of Feedback Interventions on Performance: A Historical Review, a Meta-Analysis, and a Preliminary Feedback Intervention Theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
Koltovskaia, S. (2023). Postsecondary L2 writing teachers’ use and perceptions of Grammarly as a complement to their feedback. ReCALL, 35(3), 290–304. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344022000179
Mehdi, Y. (2023, February 7). Reinventing search with a new AI-powered Microsoft Bing and Edge, your copilot for the web [Official Microsoft Blog]. Microsoft. https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/02/07/reinventing-search-with-a-new-ai-powered-microsoft-bing-and-edge-your-copilot-for-the-web/
Mizumoto, A., & Eguchi, M. (2023). Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100050
Mohebbi, H. (2021). 25 years on, the written error correction debate continues: An interview with John Truscott. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-021-00110-9
O’Neill, R., & Russell, A. M. T. (2019). Grammarly: Help or hindrance? Academic Learning Advisors’ Perceptions of an Online Grammar Checker. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 13(1), 88–107.
Palermo, C., & Wilson, J. (2020). Implementing Automated Writing Evaluation in Different Instructional Contexts: A Mixed-Methods Study. Journal of Writing Research, 12(1), 63–108. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.04
Schmidt-Fajlik, R. (2023). ChatGPT as a Grammar Checker for Japanese English Language Learners: A Comparison with Grammarly and ProWritingAid. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 14(1), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.54855/acoj.231417
Shi, Y. (2021). Exploring Learner Engagement with Multiple Sources of Feedback on L2 Writing Across Genres. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.758867
Sumakul, D. T. Y. G., Hamied, F. A., & Sukyadi, D. (2022). Artificial Intelligence in EFL Classrooms: Friend or Foe? LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 15(1), 232–256.
Sweeney, S. (2023). Who wrote this? Essay mills and assessment – Considerations regarding contract cheating and AI in higher education. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 100818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100818
Tai, A. M. Y., Meyer, M., Varidel, M., Prodan, A., Vogel, M., Iorfino, F., & Krausz, R. M. (2023). Exploring the potential and limitations of ChatGPT for academic peer-reviewed writing: Addressing linguistic injustice and ethical concerns. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 17(1), 16–30.
Tajabadi, A., Ahmadian, M., Dowlatabadi, H., & Yazdani, H. (2023). EFL learners’ peer negotiated feedback, revision outcomes, and short-term writing development: The effect of patterns of interaction. Language Teaching Research, 27(3), 689–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820951207
Tian, L., & Zhou, Y. (2020). Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context. System, 91, 102247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102247
Truscott, J. (1996). The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Warschauer, M., Tseng, W., Yim, S., Webster, T., Jacob, S., Du, Q., & Tate, T. (2023). The affordances and contradictions of AI-generated text for writers of english as a second or foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 62, 101071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101071
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge University Press.
Yu, S. (2021). Feedback-giving practice for L2 writing teachers: Friend or foe? Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100798
Yu, S., Zheng, Y., Jiang, L., Liu, C., & Xu, Y. (2021). “I even feel annoyed and angry”: Teacher emotional experiences in giving feedback on student writing. Assessing Writing, 48, 100528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100528
Zinkevich, N. A., & Ledeneva, T. V. (2021). Using Grammarly to Enhance Students’ Academic Writing Skills. Professional Discourse & Communication, 3(4), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2021-3-4-51-63
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
