Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40282140›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Exploring the Effectiveness of Cooperative Pre-Service Teacher and Generative AI Writing Feedback on Chinese Writing.

Hongli Yang, Yu Zhang, Jixuan Guo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Hongli YangFaculty of Education, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5490-5655
Yu ZhangFaculty of Education, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China.
Jixuan GuoInternational School of Business and Finance, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China.

Funding

National Office of Philosophy and Social Sciences [BHA200135]
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to their efficiency, stability, and enhanced language comprehension and analysis capabilities, generative AIs have attracted increasing attention in the field of writing as higher-level automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback tools. However, few studies have examined the impact of pre-service teachers using generative AI in combination with their own teaching experience to provide feedback on Chinese writing. To fill this gap, based on 1035 writing feedback texts, we examined the differences in writing feedback between 11 pre-service teachers and Erine Bot (a generative AI) and interviewed the pre-service teachers about their willingness to cooperate with generative AI. The collaborative writing feedback generated by the pre-service teachers using AI was compared with the feedback generated by the pre-service teachers and generative AI separately. We identified that, although Ernie Bot provided significantly better feedback than the pre-service teachers in three specific areas (except for language expression), and both Ernie Bot and the pre-service teachers had respective advantages in terms of writing strategy, human-computer cooperative writing feedback was significantly better than the writing feedback provided by either Ernie Bot or the pre-service teachers alone. The was true across all aspects of the feedback in terms of focus and strategy. These findings can support the training of pre-service teachers and improve the writing quality of their students via implementing AI to provide more effective writing feedback.

Indexed as

cooperative writing feedbackgenerative AIpre-service teacherwriting feedback

Identifiers

PMID40282140
PMCPMC12024180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.