IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v15y2025i3p21582440251369204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the Efficacy of ChatGPT-Based Feedback Compared With Teacher Feedback and Self-Feedback: Evidence From Chinese-English Translation

Author

Listed:
  • Siyi Cao
  • Tongquan Zhou

Abstract

ChatGPT, a cutting-edge AI-powered Chatbot, can quickly generate responses to given commands. While ChatGPT was reported to have the capacity to deliver useful feedback, it is still unclear about its effectiveness compared with conventional feedback approaches, such as self-feedback (SF) and teacher feedback (TF). To address this issue, this study compared the revised Chinese to English translation texts produced by 45 Chinese Master of Translation and Interpretation (MTI) students, who learned English as a Second Language (ESL), based on three feedback types (i.e., SF, TF, and ChatGPT feedback). The data was analyzed using BLEU score to gauge the overall translation quality as well as Coh-Metrix to examine linguistic features across three dimensions: lexicon, syntax, and cohesion. The findings revealed that SF and TF-guided translation texts surpassed those with ChatGPT feedback, as indicated by the BLEU score. In terms of linguistic features, ChatGPT feedback demonstrated superiority, particularly in enhancing lexical capability and referential cohesion in the translation texts. However, SF and TF proved more effective in developing syntax-related skills, as they addressed instances of incorrect usage of the passive voice. These diverse outcomes indicate ChatGPT’s potential as a supplementary resource, complementing traditional teacher-led methods in translation practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Siyi Cao & Tongquan Zhou, 2025. "Exploring the Efficacy of ChatGPT-Based Feedback Compared With Teacher Feedback and Self-Feedback: Evidence From Chinese-English Translation," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(3), pages 21582440251, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:15:y:2025:i:3:p:21582440251369204
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440251369204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440251369204
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440251369204?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:15:y:2025:i:3:p:21582440251369204. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.