arXiv preprint ·
Who Should Grade My Work? Student Perspectives on Transparent AI-Assisted Writing Assessment in Higher Education
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
In brief
Navigating AI Feedback in Education
This study dives into the perspectives of undergraduate computing students regarding AI-generated feedback. It highlights their views on the usefulness of AI feedback versus the authority of human instructors, shedding light on the nuances of student trust in AI evaluations.
What they found: The study revealed that while students found AI-generated feedback beneficial for making surface-level revisions, they maintained a strong preference for human authority in grading. Four main themes were identified: usefulness of feedback, awareness of AI limitations, conditional trust, and the role of human instructors.
AI-written summary. Check anything you rely on against the original paper.
Abstract
The integration of GenAI tools into higher education assessment raises important questions about how students understand, interpret, and respond to AI-mediated evaluation. As instructors increasingly explore AI tools for providing feedback, prior research has examined whether GenAI-generated feedback improves writing performance and how students perceive its usefulness; comparatively little is known, however, about how students interpret such evaluation when they are explicitly informed that an AI system, rather than a human instructor, produced the feedback and the score. This study reports findings from a qualitative pedagogical inquiry conducted in an undergraduate technical communication course for computing students at a Saudi public university. Thirteen male undergraduate computing students completed an in-class handwritten writing task; the scanned submissions were evaluated by ChatGPT using a rubric-based prompt aligned with the task objectives. Students were then explicitly informed that ChatGPT had generated the score and feedback and were invited to reflect on the evaluation in writing. Inductive thematic analysis of these reflections identified four themes: perceived usefulness of feedback; awareness of AI's contextual and pedagogical limitations; conditional trust, distinguishing feedback utility from evaluative authority; and reflection on the institutional and pedagogical role of the human instructor. Participants accepted GenAI feedback as useful for surface-level revision but consistently positioned the human instructor as the appropriate authority over grading decisions. The study identifies this as a distinction between feedback utility and evaluative authority, two judgments that students treat as analytically separate rather than as opposite ends of a single approval scale...
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Global to Local: Topology-Preserving Adaptive Graph Pooling via Granular-Ball
Diffs vs. Whole Files: An Empirical Comparison of Iterative Edit-Based and Direct Generation for Flutter/Dart Code Models
A Tree-based RAG Framework for Evidence-Intensive QA via Adaptive Planning and Topology-Aware Evidence Gathering
Distilling Vision-Language Models for On-Device Fire Understanding
Language models judge war differently when tested for alignment
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.