Construction of a "Feedback-Revision" Teaching Model for Senior High School English Continuation Writing Based on Generative AI

YanJun Pei

doi:10.63313/IJED.9054

Authors

YanJun Pei China West Normal University, Nanchong, 637000, China Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63313/IJED.9054

Keywords:

Generative AI, Senior High School English, Continuation Writing, Feedback-revision, Teaching Model Construction

Abstract

Aiming at the dilemmas of lagged feedback, single dimension and lack of personalization in the traditional "feedback-revision" process of senior high school English continuation writing teaching, this study, supported by the Output Hypothesis, the Interaction Hypothesis (Continuation Theory), Process Writing Theory and Formative Assessment Theory, and combined with the technical advantages of generative AI, constructs a closed-loop teaching model: Pre-reading Preparation-First Draft Writing-AI Feedback Generation and Interpretation-Targeted Revision-Teacher Review-Iterative Optimization. The model defines the collaborative roles of AI, students and teachers, and realizes three major transformations: the feedback mode from "single subject" to "human-machine collaboration", the feedback dimension from "single error correction" to "full coverage of CAF three dimensions", and the student role from "passive reception" to "active processing". Through theoretical interpretation, current situation analysis, model construction and case verification, this study confirms that the model can effectively resolve the contradiction between supply and demand of traditional feedback, improve the language quality of continuation writing, and cultivate students' feedback literacy and critical thinking. The study provides theoretical reference and practical path for "reducing burden and improving efficiency" in senior high school English writing teaching in the digital era.

References

[1] Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 102-118.

[2] Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-435.

[3] Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-299.

[4] Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.

[5] Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-55.

[6] Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.

[7] Guo, K., & Wang, D. (2023). To resist it or to embrace it? Examining ChatGPT's potential to support teacher feedback in EFL writing. Education and Information Technologies.

[8] Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. Computers & Education, 55(1), 424-423.

[9] Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294-304.

[10] Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590-619.

[11] Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118-148.

[12] Mizumoto, A., & Eguchi, M. (2023). Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 100050.

[13] Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.

[14] Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[15] Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Newbury House.

[16] Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press.

[17] Wang, C. M. (2012). Continuation writing—an effective method to improve foreign language learning efficiency. Foreign Language World, (5), 2-7.

[18] Wang, C. M. (2016). Learning through "continuation". Modern Foreign Languages, (6), 784-793+873.

[19] Jiang, L., & Chen, J. (2015). The influence of continuation writing on the development of accuracy, complexity and fluency of English writing. Modern Foreign Languages, 38(3), 366-375.

[20] Hou, J. D. (2018). The influence of metalinguistic corrective feedback on English writing accuracy. Foreign Language Research, (2), 57-63.

[21] Deng, Y. S. (2022). Application of peer feedback in senior high school English continuation writing teaching [D]. Nanchang: Jiangxi Science and Technology Normal University.

[22] Wang, Y. H., Mao, Y. S., & Dong, Y. J. (2024). An empirical study on ChatGPT-enabled feedback for senior high school English continuation writing. Educational Measurement and Evaluation, (5), 71-83.

[23] Wu, M. (2024). Research on personalized feedback mechanism of AI writing tools in English writing teaching. Education and Teaching, (23), 160-163.

[24] Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. (2017). General Senior High School English Curriculum Standards (2017 Edition). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.