HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS' RECEPTIVITY TO FEEDBACK AND PERCEPTIONS OF AUTOMATED WRITING EVALUATION TOOLS IN LATIN AMERICA

This study explores the receptivity of high school students in Latin America to Feedback, particularly in the context of learning English as a foreign language. It investigates how students perceive and respond to feedback, focusing on the use of Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) tools. The purpose of the article is to study the susceptibility of Latin American high school students to feedback when learning English as a foreign language, including an assessment of their attitude to automated written work verification tools (AWE). The research addresses gaps in the literature by examining a largely overlooked population—high school students in Latin America—and by analyzing students' perceptions of AWE tools and their receptivity to feedback. The study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative data from questionnaires and qualitative insights from three open-ended questionnaire items. Key findings reveal that students are receptive to feedback but do not engage behaviorally with it. Although they have a positive attitude toward and perception of AWE tools, their use is low. Students generally prefer personalized feedback from teachers over automated tools, though there is potential to improve the effectiveness and acceptance of AWE tools. The study found no statistically significant differences in feedback receptivity based on age, gender, or language proficiency, with negligible effect sizes across all comparisons.

1. Dabboub A.E. The effectiveness of comprehensive corrective feedback-direct and indirect-on EFL learners’ language accuracy, structural complexity and lexical diversity: Doctoral dissertation. - 2019. Р. 17–37. [in English]

2. Bitchener J., Storch N. Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters, - 2016. Р. 25-28. [in English]

3. Ellis R. A Framework for Investigating Oral and Written Corrective Feedback // Stud Second Lang Acquis. - 2010. Т. 32, № 2. Р. 335–349. [in English]

4. Carless D., Winstone N. Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy // Teaching in Higher Education. Routledge, - 2023. Т. 28, № 1. Р. 150–163. [in English]

5. Chong S.W. Reconsidering student feedback literacy from an ecological perspective // Assess Eval High Educ. Routledge, - 2021. Т. 46, № 1. Р. 92–104. [in English]

6. Winstone N.E. и др. Supporting Learners’ Agentic Engagement with Feedback: A Systematic Review and a Taxonomy of Recipience Processes // Educational Psychologist. Routledge, - 2017. Т. 52, № 1. Р. 17–37. [in English]

7. Lv X., Ren W., Xie Y. The Effects of Online Feedback on ESL/EFL Writing: A Meta-Analysis // AsiaPacific Education Researcher. Springer, - 2021. Т. 30, № 6. Р. 643–653. [in English]

8. Wahyuni S. The Effect of Different Feedback on Writing Quality of College Students with Different Cognitive Styles // Dinamika Ilmu. UINSI Samarinda, - 2017. Р. 39–58. [in English]

9. Bitchener J., Young S., Cameron D. The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing // J Second Lang Writ. - 2005. Т. 14, № 3. Р. 191–205. [in English]

10. Zeevy-Solovey O. Comparing peer, ChatGPT, and teacher corrective feedback in EFL writing: Students’ perceptions and preferences // Technology in Language Teaching & Learning. Castledown Publishers. - 2024. Т. 6, № 3. Р. 1–23. [in English]

11. Roach S.J. Feedback in context: a case study of students’ perceptions of the role, value, and use of instructor feedback in a college writing course: Doctoral dissertation thesis. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University. - 2023. №8. Р. 17–30. [in English]

12. Van der Kleij F.M., Lipnevich A.A. Student perceptions of assessment feedback: a critical scoping review and call for research // Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. Springer Science and Business Media B.V., - 2021. Т. 33, № 2. Р. 345–373. [in English]

13. Kluger A.N., Denisi A. The Effects of Feedback Interventions on Performance: A Historical Review, a MetaAnalysis, and a Preliminary Feedback Intervention Theory // Psychological Bulletin. - 1996. Т. 9, № 2. Р. 254–284. [in English]

14. Panadero E., Lipnevich A.A. A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements // Educational Research Review. Elsevier Ltd, - 2022. Т. 35. Р. 254–284. [in English]

15. Lipnevich A.A., Berg D.A.G., Smith J.K. Toward a model of students' response to feedback // Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment / под ред. Brown G.T.L., Harris L.R. New York: Routledge, - 2016. Р. 196–185. [in English]

16. Carless D., Boud D. The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback // Assess Eval High Educ. Routledge, - 2018. Т. 43, № 8. Р. 1315–1325. [in English]

17. Lipnevich A.A., Lopera-Oquendo C. Receptivity to Instructional Feedback: A Validation Study in the Secondary School Context in Singapore // European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Hogrefe Publishing GmbH, - 2024. Т. 40, № 1. Р. 22–32. [in English]

18. Lipnevich A.A. и др. Development of a measure of receptivity to instructional feedback and examination of its links to personality // Pers Individ Dif. Elsevier Ltd, - 2021. Т. 169 р. [in English]

19. Lipnevich A.A., Smith J.K. Student – Feedback Interaction Model: Revised // Studies in Educational Evaluation. Elsevier Ltd, - 2022. №75. 25 р. [in English]

20. Luca Bahr J. и др. Receptivity to Instructional Computer-Based Feedback (RIF): A Multistudy Validation of a German RIF Scale // European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Hogrefe Publishing GmbH, - 2024. №42, № 2. Р.167-178. [in English]

21. Godwin-Jones R. Partnering with AI: Intelligent writing assistance and instructed language learning // Language Learning & Technology. - 2022. № 2. 26р. [in English]

22. Fu H., Liu X. EFL Learner Engagement in Automatic Written Evaluation // Front Psychol. Frontiers Media S.A. - 2022. 13 р. [in English]

23. Wang J., Ke X. Integrating Machine Translation Into EFL Writing Instruction: Process, Product and Perception // Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Academy Publication, 2022. Т. 13, № 1. Р. 125–137. [in English]

24. Shang H.F. Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance // Interactive Learning Environments. Routledge, - 2022. Т. 30, № 1. Р. 4–16. [in English]

25. Sisquiarco A., Sánchez Rojas S., Abad J.V. Influence of Strategies-Based Feedback in Students’ Oral Performance // HOW. Asociacion Colombiana de Profesores de Ingles - ASOCOPI, - 2018. Т. 25, № 1. Р. 93–113. [in English]

26. Geng J., Razali A.B. Effectiveness of the Automated Writing Evaluation Program on Improving Undergraduates’ Writing Performance // English Language Teaching. Canadian Center of Science and Education, - 2022. Т. 15, № 7. 49 р. [in English]

27. Mayordomo R.M. и др. Perception of online feedback and its impact on cognitive and emotional engagement with feedback // Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). Springer. - 2022. Т. 27, № 6. Р. 7947–7971. [in English]

28. Lipnevich A.A., Lopera-Oquendo C. Receptivity to Instructional Feedback: Technical Manual. - 2023. № 4. Р. 794–797. [in English]

29. Nguyen H., Xiong W., Litman D. Iterative Design and Classroom Evaluation of Automated Formative Feedback for Improving Peer Feedback Localization // Int J Artif Intell Educ. Springer New York LLC, - 2017. Т. 27, № 3. Р. 582–622. [in English]

30. Creswell J. W., Plano Clark V. L. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. - 2017. 496 р. [in English]

31. Braun V., Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology // Qualitative Research in Psychology. - 2006. Vol. 3, no. 2. P. 77–101. [in English]

32. Corbin J., Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. - 2014. - 456 p. [in English]

33. McDonald N., Schoenebeck S., Forte A. Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research // Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. - 2019. Vol. 3, no. CSCW. P. 1–20. [in English]