ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
The cumulative effects of AI-generated feedback on syntactic development in high school EFL writers: a longitudinal quasi-experimental study.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: While AI-generated writing feedback research has flourished, most studies prioritizeholistic quality over syntactic competence and rely on static pre-post comparisons, neglecting dynamic multi-round evolution. Methods: This 35-week quasi-experiment examined cumulative associations between exposure to supplementary AI-generated feedback components and syntactic development among 69 Chinese high school EFL learners (Group A: Results: The study described non-linear trajectories: an initial adaptation decline followed by faster gains. Among the 10 target error types, only Part-of-Speech errors showed a statistically significant reduction after FDR correction; other error categories exhibited only suggestive trends that did not remain robust after multiple comparison adjustment. Mixed-methods analysis described a hypothesized cognitive load pattern in which extraneous load diminished yet germane processing diverged contingent on learner strategy, with passive offloading coinciding with an illusion of competence. Four revision strategies emerged. Discussion: The findings are consistent with a conditional pathway within the CLT-SAT framework as an interpretive lens and suggest the potential of a phased Human-in-the-Loop model for contexts where supplementary AI-generated feedback is provided, one that scaffolds autonomy while guarding against passive offloading.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.