Japanese writing instruction in foreign language education continues to face challenges such as low correction efficiency, limited error identification, and insufficient personalized feedback. This study examines the application of a BERT-based intelligent grading system within a blended teaching framework to address these issues. The research explores three key questions: (1) how BERT can be leveraged for automatic detection of grammatical, spelling, and sentence structure errors in Japanese writing; (2) how the system can be integrated into blended teaching; and (3) what measurable impact it has on student writing outcomes. We developed a BERT-based encoder–decoder model and conducted a controlled experiment involving an experimental group (n=150) using the system and a control group (n=150) relying on manual grading. The results showed that the experimental group achieved higher writing accuracy (89.3 vs. 79.5), improved logical coherence (4.4 vs. 3.7 on a 5-point rubric), and faster feedback (average 4.8 minutes vs. 26 minutes). The system also achieved a grammar error detection F1-score of 84.4%, outperforming traditional RNN and Transformer models. Despite its strengths, limitations persist in addressing discourse-level coherence and context-sensitive semantics. This study offers empirical evidence for integrating deep learning with pedagogy, providing a scalable and effective approach to enhancing writing instruction in second language education.

1. [1] N. Abuzinadah, M. Umer, A. Ishaq, A. Al Hejaili, S. Alsubai, A. A. Eshmawi et al., “Role of convolutional features and machine learning for predicting student academic performance from MOODLE data,” Plos One, Vol.18, No.11, Article No.e0293061, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293061
2. [2] H. Aizenstein, R. C. Moore, I. Vahia, and A. Ciarleglio, “Deep learning and geriatric mental health,” Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry, Vol.32, No.3, pp. 270-279, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2023.11.008
3. [3] M. N. Alsubaie, “Predicting student performance using machine learning to enhance the quality assurance of online training via Maharat platform,” Alex. Eng. J., Vol.69, pp. 323-339, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2023.02.004
4. [4] R. Biem and D. Morrison, “Collaboration and ethics in distance learning design,” Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn., Vol.24, No.4, pp. 194-213, 2023. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v24i4.7267
5. [5] A. X. Chen, Y. Y. Zhang, J. Y. Jia, M. Liang, Y. Y. Cha, and C. P. Lim, “A systematic review and meta-analysis of AI-enabled assessment in language learning: Design, implementation, and effectiveness,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., Vol.41, No.1, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13064
6. [6] T. K. F. Chiu, “The impact of Generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research direction in education: A case of ChatGPT and Midjourney,” Interact Learn Environ, Vol.32, No.10, pp. 6187-6203, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253861
7. [7] O. Estrada-Molina, J. Mena, and A. López-Padrón, “The use of deep learning in open learning: A systematic review (2019 to 2023),” Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn., Vol.25, No.3, pp. 370-393, 2024. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7756
8. [8] Y. L. Hui, “Evaluation of blended oral English teaching based on the mixed model of SPOC and deep learning,” Sci. Program., Article No.7044779, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/7044779
9. [9] M. Keshavarz and A. Ghoneim, “Preparing educators to teach in a digital age,” Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn., Vol.22, No.1, pp. 221-242, 2021. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i1.4910
10. [10] K. Kozyra, K. Trzyniec, E. Popardowski, and M. Stachurska, “Application for recognizing sign language gestures based on an artificial neural network,” Sensors (Basel), Vol.22, No.24, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22249864
11. [11] M. M. Kuo, X. F. Li, P. Obiomon, L. J. Qian, and X. S. Dong, “Improving student learning outcome tracing at HBCUs using tabular generative AI and deep knowledge tracing,” IEEE Access, Vol.13, pp. 82407-82420, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3568171
12. [12] A. Lindemann and J. Stolz, “Teaching mixed methods: Using the titanic datasets to teach mixed methods data analysis,” Methodology, Vol.17, No.3, pp. 231-249, 2021. https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.4241
13. [13] Y. C. Liu, W. T. Wang, and W. H. Huang, “The effects of game quality and cognitive loads on students’ learning performance in mobile game-based learning contexts: The case of system analysis education,” Educ. Inf. Technol., Vol.28, No.12, pp. 16285-16310, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11856-9
14. [14] Y. F. Miao, “Online and offline mixed intelligent teaching assistant mode of English based on mobile information system,” Mob. Inf. Syst., Article No.7074629, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/7074629
15. [15] L. Raitskaya and E. Tikhonova, “Appliances of generative AI-powered language tools in academic writing: A scoping review,” J. Lang. Educ., Vol.10, No.4, pp. 5-30, 2024. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2024.24181
16. [16] J. H. Su and W. P. Yang, “Artificial intelligence (AI) literacy in early childhood education: An intervention study in Hong Kong,” Interact. Learn. Environ., Vol.32, No.9, pp. 5494-5508, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2217864
17. [17] M. Topaz, L. M. Peltonen, M. Michalowski, G. Stiglic, C. Ronquillo, L. Pruinelli et al., “The ChatGPT effect: Nursing education and generative artificial intelligence,” J. Nurs. Educ., Vol.5, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20240126-01
18. [18] A. Younas, A. Durante, S. F. Feijóo, and E. L. Escalante-Barrios, “Strategies for educators to teach mixed methods research: A discussion,” Qual. Rep., Vol.29, No.3, pp. 831-845, 2024. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2024.6464
19. [19] Y. C. Zhou, “Teaching mixed methods using active learning approaches,” J. Mixed. Methods. Res., Vol.17, No.4, pp. 396-418, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221120566