Keywords
infographics
human- and AI-mediated feedback
D’Angelo model
feedback processing
learning by design
How to Cite
Number of views: 192
Number of downloads: 96
Abstract
This article reconceptualizes feedback in second language (L2) writing for an era of digital and multimodal composing. It argues that feedback must extend beyond error correction to address communicative effectiveness, design, and intermodal coherence (e.g., image-text alignment). To situate our discussion within the evolving ecology of digitally-mediated writing support, the article first introduces affordances of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools for feedback and describes how AI can be used to support feedback practices. The article also accounts for the complexity of feedback in contemporary composing environments by drawing on several complementary frameworks: cognitive and sociocultural perspectives, which explain internal and socially-mediated processing of feedback (e.g., attention, noticing, cognitive load, mediation), and informs multimodal feedback practices. In particular, it focuses on learning by design, which positions feedback as a means of developing learners as active designers of meaning, and on D’Angelo’s (2016) model, which provides criteria for feedback provision on multimodal products. Pedagogically, the article operationalizes theseperspectives through examples that illustrate how instructor and AI feedback can be integrated to support revision in both monomodal and multimodal texts in L2 learning and teaching contexts. The article concludes by proposing a research agenda that calls for longitudinal investigation of AI-mediated and multimodal feedback ecologies and examines how learner characteristics shape the effective and ethical use of feedback in L2 classrooms.
References
Atlas, S. (2023). ChatGPT for higher education and professional development: A guide to conversational AI. University of Rhode Island. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cba_facpubs/548
Baker, T., Smith, L., & Anissa, N. (2019). Educ-AI-tion rebooted? Exploring the future of artificial intelligence in schools and colleges. Nesta. https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/Future_of_AI_and_education_v5_WEB.pdf
Bakla, A. (2020). A mixed-methods study of feedback modes in EFL writing. Language Learning & Technology, 24(1), 107-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/44712
Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 57, 100745. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745
Bok, E., & Cho, Y. (2023). Examining Korean EFL college students’ experiences and perceptions of using ChatGPT as a writing revision tool. Journal of English Teaching through Movies and Media, 24(4), 15-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16875/stem.2023.24.4.15
Cavaleri, M., Kawaguchi, S., Biase, B. D., & Power, C. (2019). How recorded audio-visual feedback can improve academic language support. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 16(4), 1-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53761/1.16.4.6
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2015). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137539724
Cunningham, J. M. (2019). Composition students’ opinions of and attention to instructor feedback. Journal of Response to Writing, 5(1), 4-38.
D’Angelo, L. (2016). The academic poster genre: Friend or foe? In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 392-402). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315657455-36
D’Angelo, L. (2018). Disciplinary cultures in academic posters: A textual and visual metadiscourse analysis. Lingue e Linguaggi, 28, 69-83.
Dai, J., Wang, L., & He, Y. (2023). Exploring the effect of wiki-based writing instruction on writing skills and writing self-efficacy of Chinese English-as-a-foreign language learners. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1069832. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1069832
Devlin, J., Chang, M. W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019). BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) (pp. 4171-4186). Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423
Ducate, L., & Arnold, D. (2012). Computer-mediated feedback: Effectiveness and learners’ perceptions of screen-casting software vs. the comment function. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across writing contexts and tasks (pp. 31-55). CALICO.
Elola, I. (2026). Cognitive-driven L2 writing instruction in the era of new technologies. In M. A. Tabari & R. P. Leow (Eds.), Cognition in second language writing: Connecting theory, methodology, research, and pedagogy (pp. 51-79). Taylor & Francis. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003587255-5
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multi-modal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12183
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2022). Reexamining feedback on L2 digital writing. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(4), 575-595. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.4.3
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (Eds.). (2023). Processes, practices, and products of multimodal texts in the L2 classroom [Special issue]. CALICO Journal, 40(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.27294
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition & Communication, 31(1), 21-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198015963
Ghafouri, M. (2024). ChatGPT: The catalyst for teacher-learner rapport and grit development in L2 class. System, 120, 103209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103209
Hafner, C. A. (2014). Embedding digital literacies in English language teaching: Students’ digital video projects as multimodal ensembles. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 655-685. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.138
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400103
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies,7(2), 173-192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Imsa-ard, P., & Barrot, J. S. (2024). Combining multimodal technology-mediated and peer feedback: Effects on second language (L2) learners’ complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) in writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 39(4), 1023-1061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2443770
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57-71). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Koltovskaia, S., Rahmati, P., & Saeli, H. (2024). Graduate learners’ use of ChatGPT for academic text revision: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement. Journal of Second Language Writing, 65, 101130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101130
Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2020). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (3rd ed.). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003099857
Leijten, M., Van Waes, L., Schriver, K., & Hayes, J. R. (2014). Writing in the workplace: Constructing documents using multiple digital sources. Journal of Writing Research, 5(3), 285-337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.05.03.3
Li, M., Gibbons, J., & Pham, Q. N. (2023). Examining visual metadiscourse in EFL students’ infographics. CALICO Journal, 40(3), 289-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.24502
Lim, J. M. (2020). Language in multimodal writing processes and performance: Developing multimodal writing tasks for L2 writers. Michigan State University.
Mahapatra, S. (2024). Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods intervention study. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. The Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan, 41, 27-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5926/arepj1962.41.0_27
Meniado, J. C., Huyen, D. T. T., Panyadilokpong, N., & Lertkomolwit, P. (2024). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Experiences and perceptions of EFL learners in Thailand and Vietnam. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100313
Moorhouse, B. L., & Kohnke, L. (2024). The effects of generative AI on initial language teacher education: The perceptions of teacher educators. System, 122, 103290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103290
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2016). Digital stories: Bringing multimodal texts to the Spanish writing classroom. ReCALL, 28(3), 326-342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344016000094
Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2020). Digital L2 writing literacies. Equinox Press.
Overstreet, M., Akhmedjanova, D., & Vaccino-Salvadore, S. (2023). Brain-bound vs. extended: Contrasting approaches to second-language research writing in digital environments. Journal of Second Language Writing, 61, Article 101019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101019
Pérez-Núñez, A. (2023). Exploring the potential of generative AI (ChatGPT) for foreign language instruction: Applications and challenges. Hispania, 106(3), 355-362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/hpn.2023.a906568
Su, Y., Lin, Y., & Lai, C. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing Writing, 57, 100752. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100752
Tan, X. (2023). Stories behind the scenes: L2 learners’ cognitive processes of multimodal composing and traditional writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 59, 100958. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100958
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. In I. Guyon, U. von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. M. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. V. N. Vishwanathan, & R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances Advances in neural information processing systems 30: Annual conference on neural information processing systems (pp. 5998-6008). NIPS Foundation.
Xiao, Y., & Zhi, Y. (2023). An exploratory study of EFL learners’ use of ChatGPT for language learning tasks: Experience and perceptions. Languages, 8(3), 212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030212
Yoon, S.-Y., Miszoglad, E., & Pierce, L. R. (2023). Evaluation of ChatGPT feedback on ELL writers’ coherence and cohesion (arXiv:2310.06505). arXiv.
Zapata, G. C., & Lacorte, M. (Eds.) (2018). Multiliteracies pedagogy and language learning: Teaching Spanish to heritage speakers. Palgrave McMillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63103-5
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), 1-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29140/tltl.v6n3.1482
Zou, M., & Huang, L. (2023). To use or not to use? Understanding doctoral students’ acceptance of ChatGPT in writing through technology acceptance model. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1259531. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1259531
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ana Oskoz, Idoia Elola
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.