Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed article presents a balanced view of what formal correctness means in foreign language learning. It does not restrict the notion of correctness to wellformedness alone. The pragmatic competence of speakers is deemed equally relevant, even if it is not tested in the experimental protocol. More generally, the authors adopt a nuanced view of the function of errors in foreign language learning. Errors should not be simply discarded as deviations, mistakes or impediments to correct expression: they function as revealers of the learning process, and may be regarded as intermediary stages that learners (typically) go through on their learning journey. Errors also depend on the L1 spoken and other factors: the authors propose a typology of the most frequent errors made by Spanish speakers learning EFL in an academic setting. They provide a relevant and useful categorization of common mistakes.

The study focuses on lexical-syntactic correction, which is the easiest to automate with AI: the detection of ungrammatical strings and corrective feedback. It rightly points out that one of the main advantages of computer-assisted correction (over traditional teacher mediated feedback) is its immediacy. Other studies have also established that a valuable import of AI-assisted correction is its impersonal nature: students don't feel judged or intimidated. Interestingly, most students are still eager to have their work assessed (at some point) by a real human being. The conclusions and self-assessed limitations of the study are consistent with the actual findings.

Suggestions for improvement:

• The abstract should make it clear that the target language (L2) being learnt is English.
• * in a restricted and pedagogically sense [please correct and reword]
• 3. Methodology [I would suggest deleting the first paragraph "This section may be divided..."]
• 3.5. The way data was collected is unclear. What exactly happened between weeks 1 and 12? How much feedback was given over the weeks? How many written pieces were produced? Was the teaching in-person or online? Or blended? 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

I would like to sincerely thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for providing constructive and insightful feedback. I greatly appreciate your recognition of the nuanced approach to the role of errors in foreign language learning and the value of AI-assisted feedback.

In response to your specific suggestions, I have made several revisions. The abstract has been clarified to explicitly indicate that English is the target language (L2). Additionally, the phrase “in a restricted and pedagogically sense” has been reworded for clarity and is no longer present in the abstract. In this regard, minor stylistic and structural edits were also made to improve conciseness and readability while preserving all methodological and statistical details.

As kindly suggested section 3.5, “Data Collection and Corpus Compilation,” has been revised to provide a clearer account of the instructional period between weeks 1 and 12. We now specify that learners completed weekly writing tasks, resulting in approximately ten drafts per participant. Feedback was teacher-mediated, delivered both in writing and orally, and returned within one week to ensure timely and consistent support. The mode of instruction is explicitly stated as in-person. These revisions aim to clarify the frequency of feedback, the number of written pieces produced, and the teaching format, thereby improving transparency and reproducibility.

Finally, as suggested, we have deleted the first paragraph of Section 3 (“This section may be divided…”) to streamline the methodology section.

I do believe these revisions address your concerns and contribute to enhance the clarity and precision of both the abstract and the methodology.

I am grateful for your thoughtful feedback, which has helped strengthen the manuscript.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Sincerely

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Nice paper, showing that AI can have beneficial effects on language learning (even more than teacher feedback sometimes), and arguing that AI feedback could complement teacher feedback. I recommend acceptance with minor revisions. The paper is overall well-written but some parts feel like bulletpoints on a handout. Given that this is a paper, I would recommend articulating those parts more in a coherent presentation. This can be easily done. I additionally left some minor comments regarding typos, formatting, etc. (see attachment)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

I would like to sincerely thank you for your careful review of our manuscript and for your encouraging and constructive feedback. We are grateful for your recognition of the study’s contribution in demonstrating the potential benefits of AI-assisted feedback for language learning and its complementarity with teacher-mediated correction.

In response to your suggestion regarding sections that previously resembled bullet points, I have carefully revised these areas to present the information in fully articulated, coherent paragraphs. Specifically, the descriptions of AI-assisted feedback, teacher-mediated correction, error analysis, perception analysis, and ethical considerations have been rewritten to flow naturally in narrative form, providing context, explanation, and connections between concepts rather than listing points. For example, Error Analysis now emphasizes that it served as the primary medium of analysis, detailing how Corpus 1 and Corpus 2 were compared to examine recurrent grammatical errors, changes in rule application, and evidence of error fossilization or restructuring. Similarly, ethical considerations are now presented in a fully developed paragraph outlining voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymization, withdrawal rights, and ethical approval, ensuring alignment with best practices in research reporting.

I have also addressed the minor typos and formatting issues you highlighted to improve readability and overall presentation.

I do believe these revisions enhance the coherence, clarity, and professional presentation of the manuscript while preserving its original contributions. We are grateful for your thoughtful comments, which have helped strengthen the paper.

Thank you again for your time and for your positive and constructive review.

Sincerely