Teacher-Scaffolded Reconfiguration of AI Feedback Literacy in Business English Writing

Huaming Feng; Ying Chen; Haining Huang

doi:10.62177/jetp.v3i2.1374

Authors

Huaming Feng Guangzhou College of Technology and Business
Ying Chen Guangzhou College of Technology and Business
Haining Huang Guangdong University of Foreign Studies

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62177/jetp.v3i2.1374

Keywords:

AI Feedback Literacy, Business English Writing, Teacher Scaffolding, Feedback Literacy, Writing Pedagogy

Abstract

The integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into writing instruction has fundamentally reconfigured feedback practices in higher education. This change is particularly obvious in Business English writing since it is highly dependent on context, norms and phramatic constraints. While existing research has largely emphasized technological affordances and efficiency gains of AI-assisted feedback, it often overlooks the epistemic limits of AI and the pedagogical mechanisms necessary for its effective use.

This paper develops a teacher-scaffolded framework of AI feedback literacy in Business English writing. Drawing on feedback literacy theory and sociocultural scaffolding theory, it believes that AI feedback literacy is not a single technical ability, but a multi-dimensional evaluation capacity, including epistemic literacy, pragmatic literacy, and strategic literacy. At the same time, teacher scaffolding is regarded as a key mediating mechanism to guide learners to critically use AI feedback instead of accepting it as an absolute authority.

In addition, a process model is proposed featuring a recursive sequence of epistemic positioning, critical mediation, and pragmatic adaptation. By reconceptualizing the relationship among teachers, learners, and AI, this paper extends feedback literacy theory in the AI environment and provides a theoretical basis for future empirical investigation in professional discourse.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325.

Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020). Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,45(4), 527-540.

Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 150-163.

Mamad, A. (2022). Key capabilities for promoting student feedback literacy. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 13 (2023) 2, 298-315.

Bearman, M., Ajjawi, R., & Magash, T. (2023). Learning to work with the black box: Pedagogy for a world with artificial intelligence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(5), 1160-1173.

Gerlich, M. (2025). From offloading to engagement: An experimental study on structured prompting and critical reasoning with generative AI. Data, 10(11), 172.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.

van de Pol, J., Volman, M. L. L., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–297.

Hlatshwayo, P., Harran, M., & Luck, J. (2026). The impact of scaffolding and feedback practices on ESL collaborative writing performance. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 44(2), 371-385.

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623.

Huang,X. (2026).Pedagogical practice of process-oriented writing instruction based on intelligent writing platforms:A case study of the applied writing course. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 33(2):5365-5386.