Experiencias de estudiantes principiantes de español con feedback del profesor y basado en IA: un estudio exploratorio
Número
Sección
Palabras clave:
Inteligencia Artificial, ingeniería de prompts, feedback escrito, implementación curricular, ansiedad de escritura en segundas lenguas
Publicado
Resumen
Este estudio explora la integración de herramientas de Inteligencia Artificial en el currículo de un curso universitario de español para principiantes, con especial atención al uso de ChatGPT-3.5 como apoyo en tareas de escritura. Este proyecto piloto se centró en comparar la recepción del feedback generado por IA frente a la retroalimentación basada en Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) aportada por el profesor. Los estudiantes se dividieron en tres secciones: (a) un grupo de control que recibía comentarios del instructor siguiendo un sistema de codificación por colores basado en el enfoque Dynamic WCF (Hartshorn et al., 2010); (b) un grupo experimental que empleaba en su lugar ChatGPT con una prompt diseñada tras un proceso iterativo para imitar las categorías del grupo de control; y (c) un segundo grupo experimental que utilizaba una prompt que requería una menor categorización. Los resultados, recogidos a través de encuestas pre y post-trimestre con escalas Likert y preguntas abiertas, sugieren que únicamente cuando la IA opera bajo instrucciones detalladas y específicas, la percepción de calidad, claridad y utilidad del feedback se acerca a la del profesor. Además, estos estudiantes experimentaron una reducción en la ansiedad de escritura comparable al grupo de control. En contraste, la falta de control en la formulación de la prompt resultó en menor satisfacción y mayor desconfianza hacia la IA como herramienta de apoyo. Este estudio preliminar sugiere que el diseño cuidadoso de las instrucciones dirigidas a modelos de IA es un factor clave para garantizar su eficacia pedagógica en el aula de lenguas y controlar su ansiedad.
Agencias de apoyo
NoLicencia
Derechos de autor 2025 ana ruiz alonso bartol, Erik Garabaya-Casado, Claudia Sánchez Gutiérrez
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
La Revista RILE se difunde a través de Internet bajo internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
Aviso de copyright: Las personas autoras que publican en RILE retienen los derechos de autor de sus contribuciones y pueden compartir y distribuir su trabajo sin necesidad de solicitar autorización a la revista, siempre y cuando exista un reconocimiento expreso de su publicación inicial en RILE.
Descargas
Referencias
ATHANASSOPOULOS, Stravos, MANOLI, Polyxeni, GOUVI, Maria, LAVIDAS, Konstantinos, & KOMIS, Vassilis (2023). The use of ChatGPT as a learning tool to improve foreign language writing in a multilingual and multicultural classroom. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 3(2), 818-824. https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2023.02.009
BARROT, Jessie S. (2023). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745
BITCHENER, John (2021). Written Corrective Feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 207–225). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.011
BITCHENER, John, & FERRIS, Dana R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.
BONILLA LÓPEZ, Marisela, VAN STEENDAM, Espeelman, SPEELMAN, Dirk, & BUYSE, Kris (2018). The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68(3), 813-850. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12295
BOWLES, Melissa A., & GASTAÑAGA, Kacie (2022). Heritage, second and third language learner processing of written corrective feedback: Evidence from think-alouds. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(4), 675-696. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.4.7
CHEN, Chi-Fen Emily, & CHENG, Wei-Yuan Eugene (2008). Beyond the Design of Automated Writing Evaluation: Pedagogical Practices and Perceived Learning Effectiveness in EFL Writing Classes. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 94-112. http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num2/chencheng/
CHENG, Y. S. (2004). A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale development and preliminary validation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 313-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.07.001
CHENG, Xialong & LIU, Yan (2022). Student engagement with teacher written feedback: Insights from low-proficiency and high-proficiency L2 learners. System, 109, 102880 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102880
CHENG, Xialong & ZHANG, Jun Lawrence. (2021). Sustaining University English as a Foreign Language Learners’ Writing Performance through Provision of Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback. Sustainability, 13, 8192. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158192
CHONG, Sin Wang (2019). A systematic review of written corrective feedback research in ESL/EFL contexts. Language Education and Assessment, 2(2), 57-69. https://doi.org/10.29140/lea.v2n2.138
CRESWELL, John & CRESWELL, J. David (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage.
DEKEYSER, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=410472
ELLIS, Rod (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054
ESCALANTE, Juan, PACK, Austin, & BARRETT, Alex (2023). AI-generated feedback on writing: Insights into efficacy and ENL student preference. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 57.https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2
EVANS, Norman W., HARTSHORN, K. James, MCCOLLUM, Robb M. & WOLFERSBERGER, Mark (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language teaching research, 14(4), 445-463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375367
FERRIS, Dana R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
FERRIS, Dana R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies. Language Teaching, 45, 446–459.
FERRIS, Dana R. & ROBERTS, Barrie (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
FERRIS, Dana R., & KURZER, Kendon (2019). Does Error Feedback Help L2 Writers?: Latest Evidence on the Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 106-124. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.008
FOKIDES, Emmanuel, & PERISTERAKI, Eirini (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 Technologies, 30(2), 2577-2621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12912-8
FREAR, David, & CHIU, Yi-hui (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24-34.
GODWIN-JONES, Robert (2025). Technology integration for less commonly taught languages: AI and pedagogical translanguaging. Language Learning & Technology, 29(2), 11–34. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73609
GUO, Xiashouang (2024). Facilitator or thinking inhibitor: understanding the role of ChatGPT-generated written corrective feedback in language learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2445177
HAN, Jining, & LI, Mimi (2024). Exploring ChatGPT-supported teacher feedback in the EFL context. System, 126, 103502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103502
HARTSHORN, K. James, & EVANS, Norman W. (2012). The differential effects of comprehensive corrective feedback on L2 writing accuracy. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 3, 16–46. https://sites.google.com/site/linguisticsandlanguageteaching/home-1/volume-3-2012-issue-2/volume-3-2012-issue-2---article-hartshorn-evans
HARTSHORN, K. James, EVANS, Norman W., MERRILL, Paul F., SUDWEEKS, Richard R., STRONG-KRAUSE, Diane, & ANDERSON, Neil J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84-108. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.213781
HYLAND, Ken, & HYLAND, Fiona (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language teaching, 39(2), 83-101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
ISEMONGER, Ian (2023). Generative Language Models in Education: Foreign Language Learning and the Teacher as Prompt Engineer. TEFL Praxis Journal, 2, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10402411
JACOBSEN, Lucas Jasper, & WEBER, Kira Elena (2025). The Promises and Pitfalls of Large Language Models as Feedback Providers: A Study of Prompt Engineering and the Quality of AI-Driven Feedback. AI, 6(2), 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/ai6020035
KANG, EunYoung & HAN, Zhaohong (2015). The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2 Written Accuracy: A Meta-Analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 118. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189
KOHNKE, Lucas, MOORHOUSE, Benjamin Luke, & ZOU, Di (2023). ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. Relc Journal, 54(2), 537-550. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231162868
LEE, Yoo-Jean (2024). Can my writing be polished further? When ChatGPT meets human touch. ELT Journal, 78(4), 401-413. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccae039
LEE, Icy (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100734
LEE, Joseph J. & VAHABI, Farzaneh (2018). Second Language Teachers’ Written Response Practices: An In-House Inquiry and Response. Journal of Response to Writing, 4(1), 34-69. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/journalrw/vol4/iss1/3
LIN, Shiming, & CROSTHWAITE, Peter (2024). The grass is not always greener: Teacher vs. GPT-assisted written corrective feedback. System, 127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103529
LIU, Pengfei, YUAN, Weizhe, FU, Jinlan, JIANG, Zhengbao, HAYASHI, Hiroaki, & NEUBIG, Graham (2023). Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM computing surveys, 55(9), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3560815
LO, Leo S. (2023). The CLEAR path: A framework for enhancing information literacy through prompt engineering. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 49(4), 102720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102720
MANCHÓN, Rosa M. & LEOW, Ronald P. (2020). Investigating the language learning potential of L2 writing: Methodological considerations for future research agendas. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 336-355). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.14man
MAO, Shiman Shae & CROSTHWAITE, Peter (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback: (Mis)alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.05.004
MAO, Zhicheng & LEE, Icy (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, (45), 100469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100469
MAYRING, Philipp (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089
MIZUMOTO, Atsushi, & EGUCHI, Masaki (2023). Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100050
MUÑOZ-BASOLS, Javier & BAILINI, Sonia (2019). Análisis y corrección de errores. In J. Muñoz-Basols, E. Gironzetti & M. Lacorte (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Language Teaching: Metodologías, contextos y recursos para la enseñanza del español L2 (pp. 94-108), Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315646169
NAAMATI-SCHNEIDER, Lior, & ALT, Dorit (2024). Beyond digital literacy: The era of AI-powered assistants and evolving user skills. Education and Information Technologies, 29(16), 21263-21293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12694-z
OPENAI. (2023). ChatGPT (3.5) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat
PAPI, Mostafa, BONDARENKO, Anna, WAWIRE, Brenda, JIANG, Chen, & ZHOU, Shiyao (2020). Feedback-seeking behaviour in second language writing: Motivational mechanisms. Reading and Writing, 33, 485–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09971-6
QUALTRICS XM (2023). Provo, UT, USA. https://www.qualtrics.com
SÁNCHEZ-GUTIÉRREZ, Claudia Helena, LLORENTE BRAVO, Marta, GUERRA, Kathleen, AGUINAGA ECHEVERRÍA, Silvia (2022). It Works in Theory and in Practice: A Practical Guide for Introducing TBLT In a Beginner Spanish Program. L2 Journal, 14(3), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.5070/L214354581
SATARIANO, Adam, & KANG, Cecilia. (2023). How nations are losing a global race to tackle A.I.’s harms. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/technology/ai-regulation-policies.html?searchResultPosition=3
STEISS, Jacob, TATE, Tamara, GRAHAM, Steve, CRUZ, Jazmin, HEBERT, Michael, WANG, Jiali, MOON, Youngsun, TSENG, Waverly, WARSCHAUER, Mark, & OLSON, Carol Booth (2024). Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students’ writing. Learning and Instruction, 91, 101894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894
STOKEL-WALKER, Chris (2022). AI bot ChatGPT writes smart essays—Should professors worry? Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-04397-7
TSENG, Waverly, & WARSCHAUER, Mark (2023). AI-writing tools in education: If you can’t beat them, join them. Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 3(2), 258-262. https://doi.org/10.1515/jccall-2023-0008
UNESCO (2024). Guía para el uso de la IA generativa en educación e investigación. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000389227
VERA, Fernando (2023). Enhancing English language learning in undergraduate students using ChatGPT: A quasi-experimental study. Libro de Actas del Congreso Internacional de Aprendizaje Activo, 18–21. https://apolo.unab.edu.co/ws/portalfiles/portal/27240222/Libro-de-actas-CIAA-2023.pdf
YAN, Da (2023). Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation. Education and Information Technologies, 28(11), 13943-13967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4
YANG, Christine, & CHEN, Howard Hao-Jan (2025). ChatGPT and L2 Chinese writing: evaluating the impact of model version and prompt language on automated corrective feedback. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2025.2453205
YANG, Lu, & LI, Rui (2024). ChatGPT for L2 learning: Current status and implications. System, 124, 103351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103351
YANG, L. F., LIU, Y. & XU, Z. (2022). Examining the effects of self-regulated learning-based teacher feedback on English-as-a-foreign-language learners’ self-regulated writing strategies and writing performance Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1027266
YOON, Su Yoon, MISZOGLAD, Eva, & Pierce, Lisa R. (2023). Evaluation of ChatGPT feedback on ELL writers' coherence and cohesion. Arxiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.06505
YU, Shulin, ZHENG, Yao, JIANG, Lianjiang, LIU, Chunghong, & XU, Yiqin (2021). “I even feel annoyed and angry”: Teacher emotional experiences in giving feedback on student writing. Assessing Writing, 48, 100528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100528
ZEEVY-SOLOVEY, O. (2024). Comparing peer, ChatGPT, and teacher corrective feedback in EFL writing: Students’ perceptions and preferences. Technology in Language Teaching & Learning, 6(3), 1482. https://doi.org/10.29140/tltl.v6n3.1482
ZOU, Shaoyan, GUO, Kai, WANG, Jun, & LIU, Yu (2025). Investigating students’ uptake of teacher- and ChatGPT-generated feedback in EFL writing: a comparison study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2447279
