While recent research has investigated the effectiveness of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in providing feedback on students’ writing, the role of prompt engineering remains underexplored. This study enhanced the specificity and customizability of prompts by integrating standards-based writing descriptors from China's Standards of English Language Ability (CSE) into the design of GenAI prompts. A total of 164 second-year English majors were randomly assigned to three groups that used different prompt types to generate feedback during a 10-week writing course: an experimental group (n = 76) using CSE-based prompts, a control group (n = 76) using conventional prompts, and a third group (within-subjects design; n = 12) using both prompt types interchangeably. Results indicated that the standards-based prompts led to a significantly greater improvement in the quality of students’ revised essays compared with conventional prompts. Furthermore, students reported more positive perceptions and experiences with the feedback generated using CSE-based prompts. This study demonstrates that incorporating standards-based descriptors into prompt engineering can effectively enhance GenAI-generated writing feedback.
Abdi TabariMKushkiAWangY (2025) Comparing the effects of teacher- and AI-mediated corrective feedback on accuracy, complexity, and quality in L2 written narratives. Computer Assisted Language Learning1–25. doi:10.1080/09588221.2025.2561608
2.
AgricolaBTPrinsFJSluijsmansDMA (2020) Impact of feedback request forms and verbal feedback on higher education students’ feedback perception, self-efficacy, and motivation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice27(1): 6–25.
3.
AlsofyaniAHBarzanjiAM (2024) The effects of ChatGPT-generated feedback on Saudi EFL learners’ writing skills and perception at the tertiary level: a mixed-methods study. Journal of Educational Computing Research63(2): 431–463.
4.
BachmanLFPalmerAS (2010) Language Assessment in Practice: Developing Language Assessments and Justifying Their Use in The Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
BanihashemSKKermanNTNorooziO, et al. (2024) Feedback sources in essay writing: peer-generated or AI-generated feedback?International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education21: 1–15.
6.
BitchenerJStorchN (2016) Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
7.
CohenJ (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
CrosthwaitePSunS (2025) Generative AI and L2 written feedback studies: a scoping review. RELC Journal: 1–13. doi:10.1177/00336882251386530
10.
CummingA (1989) Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning39(1): 81–141.
11.
EkinS (2023) Prompt engineering for ChatGPT: a quick guide to techniques, tips, and best practices. TechRxiv: 1–11. doi:10.36227/techrxiv.22683919.v2
12.
EscalanteJPackABarrettA (2023) AI-generated feedback on writing: insights into efficacy and ENL student preference. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education20: 1–20.
13.
FokidesEPeristerakiE (2025) Comparing ChatGPT’s correction and feedback comments with that of educators in the context of primary students’ short essays written in English and Greek. Education and Information Technologies30: 2577–2621.
14.
GuoKWangD (2024) To resist it or to embrace it? Examining ChatGPT’s potential to support teacher feedback in EFL writing. Education and Information Technologies29: 8435–8463.
15.
GuoX (2024) Facilitator or thinking inhibitor: understanding the role of ChatGPT-generated written corrective feedback in language learning. Interactive Learning Environments: 1–19. doi:10.1080/10494820.2024.2445177
16.
HanCLuXFanQ (2025) Taming generative AI for interpreter education: using large language models in classroom-based assessment of English-Chinese consecutive interpreting. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer19(3–4): 444–464.
17.
HenninkMMKaiserBNMarconiVC (2017) Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough?Qualitative Health Research27(4): 591–608.
18.
HuangJMizumotoAHuangYL (2025) Comparing peer feedback and generative artificial intelligence feedback in Japanese English as a foreign language speaking context: impacts on motivation, engagement, and writing self-efficacy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics: 1–12. doi:10.1111/ijal.70020
19.
HwangMJeensRLeeHK (2025) Exploring learner prompting behavior and its effect on chatgpt-assisted English writing revision. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher34: 1157–1167.
20.
KurtGKurtY (2024) Enhancing L2 writing skills: chatGPT as an automated feedback tool. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research23: 1–17.
21.
LiJHuangJWuW, et al. (2024) Evaluating the role of ChatGPT in enhancing EFL writing assessments in classroom settings: A preliminary investigation. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications11: 9.
22.
LiJRLinkSHegelheimerV (2015) Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing27: 1–18.
23.
LoLS (2023) The art and science of prompt engineering: a new literacy in the information age. Internet Reference Services Quarterly27(4): 203–210.
24.
LuX (2010) Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics15(4): 474–496.
25.
LuoMHuXZhongC (2025) The collaboration of AI and teacher in feedback provision and its impact on EFL learner’s argumentative writing. Education and Information Technologies30: 17695–17715.
26.
MahdiHSMiladMSaeedAT, et al. (2025) Evaluating the effectiveness of AI tools across the essay writing process: a comparative study of pre-writing, drafting, and post-writing stages. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching15(1): 1–20.
ParkDAnGKamyodC, et al. (2024) A study on performance improvement of prompt engineering for generative AI with a large language model. Journal of Web Engineering22(8): 1187–1206.
31.
PengCLiuJCaiH (2022) Aligning China’s standards of English language ability with the common European framework of reference for languages. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher31: 667–677.
32.
ShermisMDBursteinJ (2013) Handbook of Automated Essay Evaluation. New York: Routledge.
33.
SteissJTateTGrahamS, et al. (2024) Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students’ writing. Learning and Instruction91: 1–15.
34.
TamACF (2025) Interacting with ChatGPT for internal feedback and factors affecting feedback quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education50(2): 219–235.
35.
TanL (2024) NeoSCA (version 0.1.4) [Computer software]. GitHub. Available at: https://github.com/tanloong/neosca (accessed 1 June 2025).
36.
TengMF (2024) ChatGPT is the companion, not enemies”: EFL learners’ perceptions and experiences in using ChatGPT for feedback in writing. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence7: 1–10.
37.
TengMF (2025) Metacognitive awareness and EFL learners’ perceptions and experiences in utilising ChatGPT for writing feedback. European Journal of Education60(1): 1–17.
38.
WangYJShangHFBriodyP (2013) Exploring the impact of using automated writing evaluation in English as a foreign language university students’ writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning26(3): 234–257.
39.
WigglesworthGStorchN (2009) Pair versus individual writing: effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing26(3): 445–466.
40.
WuJLiJGeZ, et al. (2025) Effectiveness of generative AI in automated written corrective feedback with prompting. Journal of Educational Computing Research63(6): 1493–1527..
41.
YildizMTopuzACPolatH, et al. (2025) A comparative analysis of human and GenAI-generated feedback on EFL students’ argumentative writing performance. Educational Psychology: 1–29. doi:10.1080/01443410.2025.2539797
42.
ZhangZAubreySHuangX, et al. (2025) The role of generative AI and hybrid feedback in improving L2 writing skills: a comparative study. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching: 1–19. doi:10.1080/17501229.2025.2503890
43.
ZouSGuoKWangJ (2025) Investigating students’ uptake of teacher- and ChatGPT-generated feedback in EFL writing: a comparison study. Computer Assisted Language Learning: 1–30. doi:10.1080/09588221.2024.2447279
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
