Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Main Article Content

Abstract

The increasing adoption of large language models (LLMs) is transforming language education; however, evidence regarding their pedagogical value for Arabic writing remains limited. This study investigates the educational potential of ChatGPT as an AI-assisted formative feedback tool for Arabic academic writing in a pesantren-based university in Indonesia. To achieve this, employing a qualitative descriptive design, the study integrates Error Analysis with the Student Feedback Literacy framework to examine students’ writing errors and evaluate the educational quality of AI-generated feedback. A corpus of 30 Arabic writing texts produced by 30 first-year students enrolled in an intensive Arabic matriculation program was analyzed. ChatGPT (GPT-4, May 2024 version) generated corrective feedback using a standardized prompt, and two Arabic linguistics experts evaluated the linguistic accuracy and pedagogical usefulness of each response. The findings identified 132 errors comprising 39.4% lexical, 32.6% syntactic, and 28.0% morphological errors. Notably, ChatGPT produced fully acceptable feedback for 50.76% of the errors, demonstrating its capacity in lexical and syntactic correction. However, its performance was less consistent in addressing morphologically complex and context-dependent constructions. Overall, the findings indicate that ChatGPT supports learners’ ability to recognize and revise writing errors, although it still requires teacher validation. Consequently, this study contributes valuable insights into AI-assisted language education through meaningful engagement with formative feedback in Arabic writing.

Keywords

Arabic Writing ChatGPT Error Analysis Formative Feedback Student Feedback Literacy

Article Details

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
How to Cite
Zaid, A. H. bin, Muassomah, M., Ismail, M., Setiyadi, A. C., & Yasin, A. (2026). Beyond Error Correction: ChatGPT as Formative Feedback for Arabic Writing. Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, 13(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.15575/jpi.v13i1.57550
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Al-Abri, A. (2025). Exploring ChatGPT as a virtual tutor: A multi-dimensional analysis of large language models in academic support. Education and Information Technologies, 30(12), 17447–17482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13484-x
  2. Aljanabi, M. (2024). Assessing the Arabic parsing capabilities of ChatGPT and Cloude: An expert-based comparative study. Mjals, (2024), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.58496/mjals/2024/002
  3. Athanassopoulos, S., Manoli, P., Gouvi, M., Lavidas, K., & Komis, V. (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
  4. Barrot, J. S. (2024). ChatGPT as a language learning tool: An emerging technology report. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29(2), 1151–1156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09711-4
  5. Belal, A. S. (2019). Comprehensive processing for Arabic texts to extract their roots. Iraqi Journal of Science, 60(6), 1404–1411. https://doi.org/10.24996/ijs.2019.60.6.25
  6. Boudelaa, S., Fathi, N., & Ansary, S. A. (2026). Novel dynamics in semantic ambiguity processing: Insights from a Semitic language. Journal of Memory and Language, 146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2025.104709
  7. Boudouaia, A., Khattala, A., & Bennouioua, H. (2026). Assessing the integration of artificial intelligence-generated content feedback in English language writing learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-026-09491-7
  8. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
  9. Corder, S. P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Guo, X. (2025). Facilitator or thinking inhibitor: Understanding the role of ChatGPT-generated written corrective feedback in language learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(5), 3526–3544. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2445177
  11. Juričić, V., & Sarić, D. (2024). Evaluation of AI-based grammar correction for portuguese. Hrčak – Portal of Croatian Scientific and Professional Journals, 25(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.29162/jez.2024.6
  12. Lu, Q., Yao, Y., Xiao, L., Zhu, X., & Yin, H. (2026). Can GenAI help undergraduate students become independent writers? An intervention study on its effects on writing motivation, feedback literacy, and self-regulated learning strategies. Educational Psychology, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2026.2654526
  13. Meniado, J. C. (2023). The impact of ChatGPT on English language teaching, learning, & assessment: A rapid review of literature. Arab World English Journal, 14(4), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol14no4.1
  14. Selvi, A. E., Irgatoğlu, A., Yurttadur, O., & Dağbaşı, G. (2026). Sustainable L2 writing pedagogy in Turkish higher education: Effects of AI-mediated feedback on self-regulated learning and writing performance. PloS One, 21(7), e0344618. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344618
  15. Shen, Y., & He, S. (2026). Exploring the impact of AI-generated feedback on EAP writing: Writing performance, self-regulation, and AI literacy. 2026 14th International Conference on Information and Education Technology, ICIET 2026, 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIET69664.2026.11561596
  16. Soudain, N., Bounhas, I., & Babbis, S. B. (2018). Ambiguity aware Arabic document indexing and query expansion: A morphological knowledge learning-based approach. Proceedings of the 31st International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS 2018, 230–235. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85064814024?origin=resultslist
  17. Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17
  18. Susiawati, I., Mardani, D., Matin, I., & Thamrin, M. H. (2026). Exploring AI-assisted Arabic learning for linguistic intelligence development among Indonesian university students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.17509/8c995612
  19. 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. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030212
  20. Zarkasyi, H. F., Mas’ ud, F., Hidayatullah, R. A., & Khakim, U. (2024). Strategy of Indonesian Pesantren University in achieving competence of student: A grounded research at UNIDA Gontor. KnE Social Sciences, 9(6), 119-138. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i6.15260
  21. Zhang, L., Deng, X., & Shadiev, R. (2026). A meta-review of generative AI in education: Synthesizing findings from systematic reviews. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 64(4), 1068–1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331261419689

Similar Articles

<< < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.