Accurate but Natural? Diagnosing Grammatical and Idiomatic Gaps in Japanese EFL Writing

Second language writing research distinguishes grammatical accuracy from native-like idiomaticity, yet automated writing evaluation often conflates these dimensions. This study introduces a layered LLM-correction pipeline that isolates structural errors from unnaturalness by generating literal error corrections and idiomatic revisions for 3,830 English writing samples from 120 Japanese junior high school students. Applying the regex-based CEFR-J grammar extractor, we quantify two diagnostic measures: accuracy gaps (structures attempted but incorrectly produced) and idiomatic gaps (grammatically correct structures underused or overused relative to native norms). Results reveal distinct patterns: definite articles, third-person singular -s, and modals (would, could) exhibit significant accuracy difficulties, while -ing forms and hypothetical modals (would) show the largest idiomatic underuse, with simple present verbs, subject-verb-object patterns, and modal can conversely exhibiting the most pronounced overuse. A two-dimensional instructional typology maps error rates against idiomatic gaps, distinguishing accurate but overused grammar items from error-prone or avoided complex forms requiring targeted production practice. This framework advances pedagogical feedback by enabling teachers to diagnose whether learner difficulties arise from inaccurate execution, structural avoidance, or L1-mapped overreliance, supporting evidence-based interventions tailored to the specific needs of each learner.

How Well Does AI-Generated Feedback Work? Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation across more than 20,000 EFL Essay Drafts

This study examines feedback in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing contexts, focusing on written corrective feedback (WCF). Large language models (LLMs) can provide WCF at scale, but aligning them with pedagogical best practices remains an ongoing challenge. WCF meeting criteria like factuality or relevance may still be unsuitable for learning contexts, highlighting the need for extrinsic evaluation based on the learner's perspective. We deployed WCF systems in a university-level EFL class with nearly 2,000 students, collecting over 20,000 drafts. We evaluated the generated WCF from two perspectives: intrinsic evaluation by experienced English teachers using a rubric, and extrinsic evaluation via student feedback and engagement metrics. Results revealed low alignment between teacher expert ratings and student feedback. These findings suggest that traditional expert evaluation alone may not fully capture WCF's usability or helpfulness from the learner's perspective, highlighting the importance of learner-centered evaluation frameworks for AI-based applications in language education.