Reframing Hybrid Feedback in Japanese University EFL Writing: Complementary Roles of Peer Feedback and Generative AI
Authors
-
Hisami Tsuichibaru
The University of Shiga Prefecture
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2196-7881
Keywords:
generative AI, peer feedback, EFL writingAbstract
The present classroom-based exploratory study re-examines hybrid feedback in a Japanese university EFL writing course for science majors. Thirty-six students used both peer feedback and ChatGPT-based feedback during a 12-week semester. Drawing on end-of-course questionnaires and a focused analysis of drafts, peer comments, AI feedback, and revisions, the study asked how students perceived the roles of peer and AI feedback and what pedagogical implications follow for hybrid feedback design. The findings suggested a complementary rather than competitive relationship. Peer feedback primarily supported content development, organization, reader awareness, and collaborative engagement, whereas generative AI primarily supported grammar, wording, and immediate local revision. When combined, the two sources appeared to encourage iterative revision and confidence; however, some students also experienced overload and difficulty prioritizing multiple comments. The paper argues that the value of hybrid feedback lies not in replacing human interaction with AI but in assigning distinct pedagogical roles to different feedback sources. It further suggests that the next stage of research should focus less on broad source comparison and more on comment quality, uptake, and AI-supported comment coaching. The study contributes a cautious classroom-based account of how generative AI can be integrated into EFL writing pedagogy in ways that preserve the educational value of peer interaction. Based on these patterns, the paper proposes a provisional four-stage framework for coordinating peer, AI, student, and teacher roles.
References
Allen, T. J., & Mizumoto, A. (2024). ChatGPT over my friends: Japanese English-as-a-foreign-language learners’ preferences for editing and proofreading strategies. RELC Journal, 57(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882241262533
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5
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
Chen, M., & Cui, Y. (2022). The effects of AWE and peer feedback on cohesion and coherence in continuation writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 57, Article 100915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100915
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: Student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331381064
Crosthwaite, P., & Sun, S. (2025). Generative AI and L2 written feedback studies: A scoping review. RELC Journal, 57(1), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882251386530
de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00052
Guo, K. (2024). EvaluMate: Using AI to support students’ feedback provision in peer assessment for writing. Assessing Writing, 61, Article 100864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100864
Guo, K., Pan, M., Li, Y., & Lai, C. (2024). Effects of an AI-supported approach to peer feedback on university EFL students’ feedback quality and writing ability. The Internet and Higher Education, 63, Article 100962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2024.100962
Guo, K., Zhang, E. D., Li, D., & Yu, S. (2025). Using AI-supported peer review to enhance feedback literacy: An investigation of students’ revision of feedback on peers’ essays. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(4), 1612–1639. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13540
Ha, Y. N., & Ho, N. P. (2025). EFL postgraduate students’ perceptions on the use of Grammarly and peer feedback to improve their academic writing skills. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 5(1), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.54855/ijte.25512
Huang, J., & Mizumoto, A. (2024). Examining the effect of generative AI on students’ motivation and writing self-efficacy. Digital Applied Linguistics, 1, Article 102324. https://doi.org/10.29140/dal.v1.102324
Huang, J., & Teng, M. F. (2025). Peer feedback and ChatGPT-generated feedback on Japanese EFL students’ engagement in a foreign language writing context. Digital Applied Linguistics, 2, Article 102469. https://doi.org/10.29140/dal.v2.102469
Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745–769. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587558
Min, H.-T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003
Tian, L., & Zhou, Y. (2020). Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context. System, 91, Article 102247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102247
Tran, Y. V., & Le, T. H. G. (2025). Evaluating ChatGPT’s reliability in grading writing assignments on the EOP learning platform. ICTE Conference Proceedings, 7, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.54855/979-8-9870112-8-7_1
Truong, C. Q., & Tran, T. M. H. (2024). The effectiveness of ChatGPT in students’ practicing writing skills: A study at HCM UPES. ICTE Conference Proceedings, 5, 103–117. https://doi.org/10.54855/ictep.2459
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2008). Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800701771580
Downloads
Citations
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Hisami Tsuichibaru
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the picte the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the proceedings' published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository, in a journal, or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this proceedings.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process.
