Teacher and AI Feedback in IELTS Writing Task 2 : Scoring Alignment, Learner Engagement, and Writing Development in a Mixed-Methods Study

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Teacher and AI Feedback in IELTS Writing Task 2: Scoring Alignment, Learner Engagement, and Writing Development in a Mixed-Methods Study Lee, Mi Ran Graduate School of English Education Major Hankuk University of Foreign studies This mixed-methods study examined the effects of teacher-generated and AI-generated feedback on IELTS Writing Task 2 performance and learner engagement in an adult EFL context. 34 Korean IELTS candidates participated in a four-week intervention in which teacher feedback and AI feedback were alternated. Quantitative analyses of pre- and post-test scores and analytic criteria revealed that both feedback types supported significant writing improvement, though in different ways. Teacher feedback was more strongly associated with gains in Task Response and Coherence and Cohesion, while AI feedback was linked to improvements in Lexical Resource and Grammatical Range and Accuracy. Although AI tended to assign higher scores, both feedback sources showed similar developmental patterns over time. Qualitative findings indicated that effective revision depended on learners’ feedback literacy rather than feedback source alone. The study provides empirical evidence on the pedagogical role of AI feedback in high-stakes L2 writing contexts.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1
• 1.1 Background of the Study 1
• 1.2 Need for the Study 3
• 1.3 Purpose and Aims of the Study 5
• 1.4 Research Questions 7
• 1.5 Significance of the Study 8
• 1.6 Structure of the Thesis 9
• CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW 11
• 2.1 Foundational Concepts of Written Feedback 12
• 2.1.1 Definitions and Theoretical Foundations 12
• 2.1.2 Pedagogical Importance 13
• 2.2 Teacher and AI feedback 15
• 2.2.1 Distinct Features and Pedagogical Implications of Teacher and AI feedback 15
• 2.2.1.1 Teacher Feedback: Dialogic, Contextual, and Relational 16
• 2.2.1.2 AI Feedback: immediate, Consistent, and Increasingly Pedagogically Sophisticated 17
• 2.2.1.3 Comparative Pedagogical implications 18
• 2.2.2 Types of Feedback in Terms of Explicitness: Direct, Indirect, and Metalinguistic 18
• 2.2.3 Focus and Scope of Feedback: Form-Focused vs. Content-Focused 23
• 2.2.4 Timing of Feedback: Immediate vs. Delayed 26
• 2.2.5 Pedagogical Distinctions Between Teacher and AI Feedback 28
• 2.3. Learner Engagement 32
• 2.3.1 Definition of Learner Engagement 32
• 2.3.2 Significance of Learner Engagement 34
• 2.4. IELTS Writing Task 2 38
• 2.4.1 Key Domains of IELTS Scoring Criteria 38
• 2.5. Previous Studies 40
• 2.5.1 Overseas Studies 40
• 2.5.2 Studies Conducted in Korea 45
• CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY 50
• 3.1. Research Purpose and Design 50
• 3.2. Context of the Study and Participants 52
• 3.3 Research and Data Collection Procedures 53
• 3.4 Instruments 58
• 3.4.1 Writing Tasks (Essay Prompts) 60
• 3.4.2 Feedback Instruments (Teacher and AI Feedback) 65
• 3.4.3 Student Reflective Logs 76
• 3.4.4 Coding Framework for Learner Engagement 78
• 3.4.5 Student Revision Coding Scheme 81
• 3.4.6 Learner-Perception Questionnaire 83
• 3.4.7 Semi-Structured Interviews 85
• 3.4.8 Rationale for Mixed-Methods Integration 87
• 3.5 Data Analysis 88
• 3.5.1 Statistical Instruments 88
• 3.5.2 Qualitative Instruments 91
• CHAPTER IV. Results 94
• 4.1 Results for Research Question 1 95
• 4.1.1 Quantitative Consistency in Human and AI Scoring 96
• 4.1.2 Qualitative Consistency in Human and AI Feedback 99
• 4.2 Results for Research Question 2 102
• 4.2.1 Questionnaire Findings on Learners’ Perceptions 103
• 4.2.2 Qualitative Findings 106
• 4.2.2.1 Semi-interviews 106
• 4.2.2.2 Learner Logs 111
• 4.2.2.3 Revised Draft Analysis 115
• 4.3 Research Question 3: Development of Writing Performance 130
• 4.3.1 Descriptive Trends in Overall Writing Performance 131
• 4.3.2 Repeated- Measures ANOVA Results for Overall Scores 132
• 4.3.3 Post-Hoc Pairwise Comparisons Across Weeks 134
• 4.3.4 Criterion-Level Pre-Post Changes in Writing Performance 136
• CHAPTER V. Conclusion 138
• 5.1 Key Findings 138
• 5.2 Implications 140
• 5.3 Limitations 142
• 5.4 Recommendations for Future Research 144
• 5.5 Final Remarks 145
• REFERECES 147
• APPENDICES 164