
Perspective Article
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), including ChatGPT, has transformed written corrective feedback (WCF) in L2 writing—shifting it from a uniquely human practice to an interactive process between learners and AI. This reflection explores GenAI’s impact on learners’ linguistic development, focusing on complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). Drawing on the extant literature and the author’s own work, it highlights that meaningful learner engagement is key to preserving writers’ autonomy when using AI feedback. It concludes by advocating a dynamic perspective and longitudinal research to trace the co-evolution of GenAI and learners’ CAF progress, arguing GenAI’s value lies in teachers and learners collaboratively redefining feedback practices in this human–machine ecosystem.
Download Count : 6
Visit Count : 103
Generative Artificial Intelligence; Second Language Writing; Written Corrective Feedback; Complexity–Accuracy–Fluency (CAF); Longitudinal Research
Publisher’s Note
The claims, arguments, and counter-arguments made in this article are exclusively those of the contributing authors. Hence, they do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the authors’ affiliated institutions, or EUROKD as the publisher, the editors and the reviewers of the article.
Acknowledgements
None.
Funding
This research was not funded.
CRediT Authorship Contribution Statement
Li Dong: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing and Review
Generative AI Use Disclosure Statement
The author used DeepSeek in the initial submission to assist with reviewing relevant literature and language editing (with not core texts or findings exposed to the tool). However, all research design, synthesizing studies, and academic decisions were made by the author.
Ethics Declarations
World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki–Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Participants
This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Given the nature of the research (i.e., a personal reflection), the institute did not require formal ethical approval.
Competing Interests
The author declare no competing interests.
Data Availability
Given the nature of the research, there are no associating data.