Can ChatGPT score ESL writing? A correlation analysis between teacher and GenAI scores

Large language models (LLMs) have recently gained attention in automated writing evaluation (AWE) due to their flexibility, ease of use, and free accessibility. However, most existing studies have relied on standardized rubrics and detailed scoring guidelines to guide model outputs. Recent evidence suggests that LLMs can adapt their scoring behavior through example-based calibration. Building on this insight, the present study examines whether ChatGPT-4o can mirror individual instructors’ evaluative tendencies. Data consisted of 100 previously graded final exam writing samples from Saudi students of English as a second language (ESL), provided by five instructors at a Saudi university’s Bachelor of Arts program. GPT (generative pre-trained transformer) was calibrated using instructor-graded writing samples to enhance its alignment with human grading criteria. Subsequent analysis involved 82 samples, excluding those used in calibration. Results revealed a strong positive and statistically significant correlation ( r = 0.816, p < .001) between GPT scores and teacher-assigned scores. Descriptive analyses further indicated differential scoring tendencies: GPT was more generous toward lower-quality writings, assigning higher mean scores than human raters, whereas teachers tended to award higher scores than GPT for high-quality writings. These findings suggest that GPT, particularly when effectively calibrated, can mirror teacher grading practices, though with notable differences at performance extremes. Consequently, this study highlights GPT’s potential as a complementary assessment tool in ESL writing instruction.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Language Teaching Research
Published
2026-02-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688261415584
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Can ChatGPT score ESL writing? A correlation analysis between teacher and GenAI scores

Anas Alkhofi
Language Teaching Research
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Can ChatGPT score ESL writing? A correlation analysis between teacher and GenAI scores

Anas Alkhofi
article en

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have recently gained attention in automated writing evaluation (AWE) due to their flexibility, ease of use, and free accessibility. However, most existing studies have relied on standardized rubrics and detailed scoring guidelines to guide model outputs. Recent evidence suggests that LLMs can adapt their scoring behavior through example-based calibration. Building on this insight, the present study examines whether ChatGPT-4o can mirror individual instructors’ evaluative tendencies. Data consisted of 100 previously graded final exam writing samples from Saudi students of English as a second language (ESL), provided by five instructors at a Saudi university’s Bachelor of Arts program. GPT (generative pre-trained transformer) was calibrated using instructor-graded writing samples to enhance its alignment with human grading criteria. Subsequent analysis involved 82 samples, excluding those used in calibration. Results revealed a strong positive and statistically significant correlation ( r = 0.816, p < .001) between GPT scores and teacher-assigned scores. Descriptive analyses further indicated differential scoring tendencies: GPT was more generous toward lower-quality writings, assigning higher mean scores than human raters, whereas teachers tended to award higher scores than GPT for high-quality writings. These findings suggest that GPT, particularly when effectively calibrated, can mirror teacher grading practices, though with notable differences at performance extremes. Consequently, this study highlights GPT’s potential as a complementary assessment tool in ESL writing instruction.

Language Teaching Research
King Faisal University (SA)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 44%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.