Authors
- Shchipitsina Larisa Yu. Dr. Sc. (Philology), docent
Annotation
In connection with the spread of content generated by neural networks and the increasing role of generative neural networks in various spheres of life, including
education, the issues of studying, identifying artificial texts and comparing them with natural texts of the same functional focus are becoming relevant. In this regard, the article examines the texts of natural and artificially generated feedback on students’ written work as a genre of pedagogical discourse. The analysis of feedback on the written work of postgraduate students in the course ‘Foreign Language for Scientific Research’ and the results of a survey are used to compare the texts of feedback composed by the teacher and generated in neural network Magic School ai. As a result of the analysis, a common genre description of the feedback is given with a focus on its pragmatic, structural-semantic and stylistic-linguistic peculiarities. The article reveals the common and differing features of natural and artificially generated feedback, noted for the collected material. Linguistic analysis and informants’ answers testify that the generated feedback has a larger text volume in comparison with the teacher’s feedback and explicitly shows the formal text structure (through internal headings, bullet points and tables). In other aspects (dialogic and concise character, imperativeness,
evaluativeness), the feedback composed by the instructor and the AI platforms have similar features. The research presented in the article can be further continued by testing
ideas on a larger number of feedback texts, as well as on material from other genres.
How to link insert
Shchipitsina, L. Y. (2025). GENERATED AND NATURAL FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ ESSAYS: LINGUISTIC FEATURES AND SURVEY RESULTS Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 4 (60), 114. https://doi.org/10.24412/2076-913X-2025-460-114-123
References
1.
1. Korenev, A. A. (2024). Strategies of using artificial intelligence for written corrective feedback in language education. Lomonosov Linguistics and Intercultural Communication Journal, 27(2), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU-2074-1588-19-27-2-5 (In Russ.).
2.
2. Sysoyev, P. V., Filatov, E. M., & Sorokin, D. O. (2024). Feedback in foreign language teaching: from information technologies to artificial intelligence. Language and Culture, (65), 242–261. https://doi.org/10.17223/19996195/65/11 (In Russ.).
3.
3. 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), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100050
4.
4. Yang, H., Gao, C., & Shen, Hz. (2024). Learner interaction with, and response to, AI-programmed automated writing evaluation feedback EFL writing: An exploratory study. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 3837–3858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11991-3
5.
5. Barkar, A., Chollet, M., Biancardi, B., & Clavel, Ch. (2023). Insights Into the Importance of Linguistic Textual Features on the Persuasiveness of Public Speaking. Companion Publication of the 25th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (p. 51–55). Association for Computing. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610661.3617161
6.
6. Nitu, M., & Dascalu, M. (2024). Beyond lexical boundaries: LLM-Generated text detection for romanian digital libraries. Future Internet, 16(41), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi16020041
7.
7. Tormyshova, T. Yu., Ryazantseva, T. Yu., & Sukhanova, N. I. (2024). Teaching students of linguistics to write essays in a foreign language based on working with the Criterion automated assessment system. Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities, 29(1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.20310/1810-0201-2024-29-1-99-108 (In Russ.).
8.
8. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
9.
9. Shchipitsina, L. Yu. (2009). Genres of computer-mediated communication. Pomorskij universitet. (In Russ.).
10.
10. Eremin, Yu. V. (2001). Theoretical foundations of professional and communicative training of future teachers in the context of a pedagogical university [Abstract of dissertation for the Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences: 13.00.08. Ros. gos. ped. un-t im. A. I. Gercena]. (In Russ.).
11.
11. Karasik, V. I. (2004). Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Gnozis. (In Russ.).
12.
12. Pribylova, N. G., & Frolova, S. V. (2023). The main characteristics of the speech of a foreign language teacher as a speech partner in modern educational discourse. Pedagogical discourse in the modern scientific paradigm and educational practice (p. 323–329). Proceedings of the III All-Russian conference of Moscow State University. Yаzy’ki Narodov Mira. (In Russ.).