EFL Students’ Perceptions on AI-Generated Feedback in Academic Writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58258/85cr7r49Abstract
The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) writing tools has changed the way English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students seek feedback on their academic writing, particularly during the demanding process of preparing a research proposal or thesis. This study aims to explore how final-semester EFL students perceive, evaluate, and respond to AI-generated feedback while writing their proposal or thesis. Using a descriptive qualitative design, this study employed a Likert-scale screening questionnaire distributed to 24 respondents, followed by semi-structured interviews with six key informants selected through purposive sampling. The findings of the questionnaire indicate that most participants perceived AI-generated feedback favorably for surface-level writing issues, with 87.5% agreeing that it helped them identify possible errors before consulting their supervisor, while only 62.5% reported cross-checking content-level AI suggestions before applying them. From a qualitative perspective, thematic analysis organized these perceptions into four components: cognitive (understanding of how AI feedback is produced and how it differs from supervisor feedback), affective (confidence balanced with doubt about accuracy), conative (direct application of surface-level suggestions versus cross-checking of content-level suggestions), and external/internal cues (trust shaped by feedback consistency and by students’ own digital literacy). When examined through Rosenberg and Hovland’s Tripartite Attitude Model, Robbins and Judge’s theory of perception, and the concept of AI Literacy, the findings show that students who engaged more critically and selectively with AI-generated feedback demonstrated higher AI literacy, while those who applied suggestions uncritically demonstrated lower AI literacy regardless of the amount of AI feedback they received. This study offers practical recommendations for students and lecturers on the wise and critical use of AI-generated feedback in the proposal and thesis writing process.References
Alghasab, M. B. (2025). English as a foreign language (EFL) secondary school students’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools for developing writing skills: Unveiling practices and perceptions. Cogent Education, 12(1), Article 2505304. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2505304
Asnas, S. A. M., & Hidayanti, I. (2024). Uncovering EFL students’ frequent difficulties in academic writing and the coping strategies: The case of a college in Indonesia. Journal on English as a Foreign Language, 14(1), 124–151. https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v14i1.7472
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Dewi, U., Daulay, S. H., & Ismahani, S. (2026). AI feedback vs. peer feedback in EFL writing: Exploring Indonesian students’ perceptions. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 11, Article 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-026-00424-6
Ding, L., Zou, D., & Kohnke, L. (2025). ChatGPT as an automated writing evaluation tool: How students perceive it and how it affects their writing. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 26777–26799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13775-3
Gerungan, W. A. (1996). Psikologi Sosial (edisi kedua). PT Refika Aditama.
Guo, K., & Wang, D. (2024). To resist it or to embrace it? Examining ChatGPT’s potential to support teacher feedback in EFL writing. Education and Information Technologies, 29(7), 8435–8463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
Imansyah, Utama, I. M. P., & Sumarni, B. (2018). An analysis on the EFL teachers’ perception about authentic assessment. VELES: Voices of English Language Education Society, 2(2), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v2i2.845
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2007). Introduction to academic writing (3rd ed.). Pearson Longman.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2013). Organizational behavior (15th ed.). Pearson.
Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In C. I. Hovland & M. J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 1–14). Yale University Press.
Shi, J., Liu, W., & Hu, K. (2025). Exploring how AI literacy and self-regulated learning relate to student writing performance and well-being in generative AI-supported higher education. Behavioral Sciences, 15(5), 705. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050705
Suartika, I Putu. (2009). Contextual teaching and learning in English in international standard senior high school in Denpasar: Teachers’ perception and pedagogical practices the academic year 2007/2008 [Unpublished thesis]. Undiksha, Singaraja.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Saudah saudah, Taufik Suadiyatno, Imansyah Imansyah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright Notice
Authors who publish with Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.Â
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
