This study analyzes students’ use of ChatGPT prompts to explore its potential as a supplementary feedback tool in English writing classes. Thirty-one pre-service teachers participated and were divided into high, middle, and low groups based on their self-evaluation, standardized test scores, and essay scores prior to receiving ChatGPT feedback. The data sources included their two essays, ChatGPT prompts, questionnaires, and transcripts from the second writing conference. The ChatGPT prompts and questionnaires were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and the writing conference transcripts were examined to understand the participants’ use of prompts. The results showed participants used prompts 40 times in the first assignment and 175 times in the second assignment. The average prompt usage increased from 1.5 times in the first assignment to 6.7 times in the second assignment. In terms of students’ levels, the high group used more prompts (5.58 times) than the middle (5 times) and the low groups (1.75 times). Notably, students who used ChatGPT commands five times or more were mostly from the high and middle groups. Differences in prompt usage patterns were also identified, with the high and middle groups engaging in more continuous and interactive conversations with ChatGPT. Students expressed satisfaction with ChatGPT’s feedback, particularly in vocabulary selection, grammar correction, and sentence generation.

The present study aimed at investigating the effects of the two types of teacher feedback―direct corrective feedback (DCF) and metalinguistic explanation (ME)―on the development of EFL learners’ knowledge of the English indefinite article and on their use of it in writing. For this study, 58 college students classified into three groups (two experimental groups and one control group) took the error correction test and performed three writing tasks. The results of the study are 1) there was no group effect of the two types of feedback in the development of their explicit knowledge of the target feature in the test, whereas a time effect was found that their knowledge of the target feature developed significantly after the treatment; and 2) no group differences were found between the two types of feedback in the use of the target feature in the revised writing and among the three writings, though the DCF group outperformed the ME group in the accurate use of the target feature in writing. Theoretical and pedagogical relevance of the findings is addressed.

High quality and timely assessment feedback is central to student learning in higher education; however, written feedback has many limitations. One of the innovative approaches to delivering feedback to EFL learners is individualized audio-visual feedback (AVF) using screencast technology. Previous research on AVF has been extensively descriptive and mostly focused on student preferences for feedback and evaluation of various screencast software. The present study employed a mixedmethod design using pre-post writing tasks and pre-post questionnaires to investigate what particularly beneficial affordances this type of media-rich feedback might offer for writers in the English-Medium Instruction (EMI) classroom, to identify the effects of AVF on changes in learners’ motivation, and to explore students’ perceptions towards screencast feedback. The results suggest that AVF is positively received by EFL learners and that simultaneous visual cues and detailed explanations promote better understanding, engagement, and active listening. In addition, AVF significantly improves learners’ writing performance and academic motivation. The paper concludes with practical implications and suggestions for further research.

The purpose of this study is to investigate error patterns in EFL college students’ English writing as well as their change over time, based on the teacher’s feedback. In order to accomplish this purpose, two research questions were constructed; first, what are the characteristics of Korean EFL students’ writing based on the maturity of English sentence by the T-unit analysis? Second, what types of error patterns are produced in Korean EFL students’ writing? Also, how do the error patterns change based on the teacher’s feedback over time? The participants were four Korean EFL college students, and they were asked to pre-write, draft, revise and edit until they completed their final draft. The results of pre- and post-writing test were also analyzed. The major findings are as follows: 1) The mean number of T-unit among participants was 42.25 units, and the mean number of words per T-unit was 10.95 words. 2) The most frequently committed errors were found out as lexical and morphological errors. Moreover, the rate of lexical and sentence structure errors has been dropped, whereas the rate of punctuation errors has increased as the teacher’s feedback progressed over time. Pedagogical and practical suggestions are also made on the effective teaching of English writing in Korean classroom settings.

This study investigated which type of corrective feedback, direct feedback or indirect feedback, would be more effective for reducing the targeted errors−verb, noun, and determiner errors−in L2 writing. The 20 Korean EFL college students were divided into two feedback conditions: direct feedback and indirect coded feedback. The results of the study showed that only the errors in the noun category, not the other two categories, showed a significant decrease over time. There were no significant differences in the effect of the differential feedback. The post surveys and interviews revealed that the students in both groups had difficulty in understanding their errors and feedback on them, and they wanted to receive a more detailed explanation about their errors in order to fully understand them. The overall findings indicate that different types of corrective feedback need to be combined with other methods such as a one-to-one conference or mini-lesson for further helping students understand their errors and reduce other errors in the future. This study provides L2 teachers with valuable information on how to respond more effectively to the needs of L2 learners.