Üretken Yapay Zekâ ile Yazmanın Dönüşümü: EFL Öğrencilerinin Yazma Sürecinde Otomatik Geri Bildirimin Etkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Moodle öğrenme yönetim sistemine entegre edilmiş üretken yapay zekâ destekli bir otomatik yazma değerlendirme aracının EFL öğrencilerinin yazma becerilerine etkisini incelemektedir. Nitel araştırma desenlerinden durum çalışması yöntemi kullanılarak yürütülen araştırmada, bir üniversitenin hazırlık programında öğrenim gören 53 öğrenci ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Öğrenciler ve öğretim elemanı ile yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler tematik analizle değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, AES sisteminin dil bilgisi, yazım ve paragraf yapısı gibi teknik becerileri geliştirdiğini; ancak içerik üretimi ve fikir geliştirme gibi üst düzey becerilerde sınırlı kaldığını göstermektedir. Öğrenciler, sistemin kullanıcı dostu arayüzü ve anlık geri bildirim özelliğini olumlu değerlendirirken; bazı geri bildirimlerin yüzeysel bulunduğu belirtilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, AES sistemlerinin yazma öğretiminde öğretmen dönütünü tamamlayıcı bir araç olarak kullanılması önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• EFL öğrencileri
• geri bildirim algısı
• nitel araştırma
• otomatik yazma puanlama
• üretken yapay zekâ

The Transformation of Writing with Generative Artificial Intelligence: The Effect of Automated Feedback on the Writing Process of EFL Students

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of an Generative Artificial Intelligence powered Automated Essay Scoring (AES) tool, integrated into the Moodle learning management system, on the writing skills of EFL students. Employing a qualitative case study design, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with nine preparatory class students and one instructor at a state university. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings indicate that the AES system contributed to students’ development in technical areas such as grammar, spelling, and paragraph organization, while it remained limited in fostering higher-order skills like idea generation and content development. Students appreciated the system’s user-friendly interface and instant feedback feature, though some perceived the feedback as superficial. The study concludes that AES systems should be used as a complementary tool to teacher feedback in writing instruction.

Keywords

• EFL learners
• feedback perception
• qualitative research
• automatic writing scoring
• generative artificial intelligence

References

1. Al-Inbari, F. A. Y., & Al Wasy, B. Q. M. (2023). The impact of automated writing evaluation (AWE) on EFL learners' peer and self-editing. Education and information technologies, 28(6), 6645–6665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11458-x
2. Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated Essay Scoring With e-rater® V.2. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 4(3).
3. Ayan, A. D. (2025). Rasch analysis of teacher, artificial intelligence and hybrid feedback on EFL students' writing (917836) [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi-Isparta]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
4. Barkaoui, K. (2011). Effects of marking method and rater experience on ESL essay scores and rater performance. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(3), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.526585
5. Bozkurt, A. (2023). ChatGPT, Üretken Yapay Zeka ve Algoritmik Paradigma Değişikliği. Alanyazın, 4(1), 63-72. https://doi.org/10.59320/alanyazin.1283282
6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
7. Burstein, J., & Leacock, C. (2006). Introduction. Natural Language Engineering, 12(2), 109–113. doi:10.1017/S1351324906004219
8. Chan, W. S. A., Kruger, J., & Doherty, S. (2020). Comparing the impact of automatically generated and corrected subtitles on cognitive load and learning in a first- and second-language educational context. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 18 237-272. https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v18i0.506

9. Chiu, T. K. F., Xia, Q., Zhou, X., Chai, C. S., & Cheng, M. (2023). Systematic Literature Review on Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Research Recommendations of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, Article 100118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100118
10. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Nitel sorgulama ve araştırma tasarımı: Beş yaklaşım arasından seçim yapmak (4. baskı). SAGE.
11. Dikli, S. (2006). An Overview of Automated Scoring of Essays. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 5(1).
12. Ertok, Ş. Ö. (2025). ChatGPT as a language teacher and a practice tool: An exploratory study (Tez No. 925036) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi-Bursa]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
13. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for second language students. Routledge.
14. Fu, Q. K., Lin, C. J., Hwang, G. J., & Zhang, L. (2019). Impacts of a mind mapping-based contextual gaming approach on EFL students’ writing performance, learning perceptions and generative uses in an English course. Computers & Education, 137, 59-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.005
15. Geng, J., & Razali, A. B. (2022). Effectiveness of the Automated Writing Evaluation Program on Improving Undergraduates’ Writing Performance. English Language Teaching, 15(7), 49-60. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v15n7p49
16. Gozali, I., Wijaya, A. R. T., Lie, A., Cahyono, B. Y., & Suryati, N. (2024). Leveraging the potential of ChatGPT as an automated writing evaluation (AWE) tool: Students’ feedback literacy development and AWE tools integration framework. The JALT CALL Journal, 20(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v20n1.1200
17. 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, 8435-8463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0
18. Harmer, J. (2004). How to Teach Writing. Pearson Longman.
19. Heintz, K., Roh, Y., & Lee, J. (2022). Comparing the accuracy and effectiveness of wordvice ai proofreader to two automated editing tools and human editors. Science Editing, 9(1), 37-45. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.261
20. Huawei, S., & Aryadoust, V. (2023). A systematic review of automated writing evaluation systems. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 71-795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11200-7
21. Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge University Press.
22. Kellogg, R. T., & Raulerson, B. A. (2007). Improving the writing skills of college students. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 237-242. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194058
23. Lan, Y. J. (2015). Contextual EFL learning in a 3D virtual environment. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 16-31. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44412
24. Lee, A. V. Y. (2023). Supporting students’ generation of feedback in large-scale online course with artificial intelligence-enabled evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 77, 101250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101250
25. Li, Z., Liang, C., Peng, J., & Yin, M. (2024, 11 Mayıs-16 Mayıs). The Value, Benefits, and Concerns of Generative AI-Powered Assistance in Writing. 2024 CHI Bilgisayar Sistemlerinde İnsan Faktörleri Konferansı Bildirileri, New York, USA.
26. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
27. Liu, C., Hou, J., Tu, Y. F., Wang, Y., & Hwang, G. J. (2021). Incorporating a reflective thinking promoting mechanism into artificial intelligence-supported English writing environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(9), 5614–5632. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2012812
28. Luo, M., Hu, X. & Zhong, C. (2025). The collaboration of AI and teacher in feedback provision and its impact on EFL learner’s argumentative writing. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13488-7
29. Murphy, R. S., Wotley, D., & Minn, D. (2023). Integrating ChatGPT into the EFL Classroom: Benefits and Challenges. 基盤教育センター紀要= Bulletin/Center for Fundamental Education, (40), 97-166.
30. Öğüt, B. (2022). The impact of automated corrective feedback tools on EFL learners' writing performance (Tez No. 755625) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi-İstanbul]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
31. Rutter, L., & Matthews, M. (2002). InfoSkills: a holistic approach to on‐line user education. The electronic library, 20(1), 29-34. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470210418245
32. Selvi, B. (2024). The Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Enhancing Academic Writing. Social Paradigm: An International Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1), 22-56
33. Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of Automated Essay Evaluation: Current Applications and New Directions. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203122761
34. Su, Y., & Lai, C. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing Writing, 57, 100752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100752
35. Tambunan, A. R. S., Andayani, W., Sari, W. S., & Lubis, F. K. (2022). Investigating Efl Students’ Linguistic Problems Using Grammarly As Automated Writing Evaluation Feedback. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v12i1.46428
36. Toscu, S. (2025). ChatGPT: Is It Reliable as an Automated Writing Evaluation Tool? Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 15(1), 329-349. https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.1463503
37. Uyar, A. C., & Büyükahıska, D. (2025). Artificial intelligence as an automated essay scoring tool: A focus on ChatGPT. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 12(1), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1517994
38. Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 157-180. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr190oa
39. Weigle, S. C. (2010). Validation of automated scores of TOEFL iBT tasks against non-test indicators of writing ability, Language Testing, 27(3), 335-353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210364406
40. Woodworth, J. (2022). Hybrid Feedback: The Effıcacy Of Combining Automated And Teacher Feedback For Second Language Academic Writing Development. [PHD Dissertation, York University-Toronto]
41. Yan, D. (2023). Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 11329-11354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4
42. Zhao, X. (2022). Leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) Technology for English Writing: Introducing Wordtune as a Digital Writing Assistant for EFL Writers. RELC Journal, 54(3), 890-894. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221094089 (Original work published 2023)
43. Zupanc, K., & Bosnić, Z. (2020). Improvement of Automated Essay Grading by Grouping Similar Graders. Fundamenta Informaticae, 172(3), 239–259. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2020.2978891