Search and Filter

Repository Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the repository's content relevance and usability. Please share your thoughts to help us better serve researchers and practitioners.

Submit feedback

Submit a research study

Contribute to the repository:

Add a paper

AI, Expert or Peer? Examining the Impact of Perceived Feedback Source on Pre-Service Teachers Feedback Perception and Uptake

Date
Publisher
arXiv
Feedback plays a central role in learning, yet pre-service teachers' engagement with feedback depends not only on its quality but also on their perception of the feedback content and source. Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to provide educational feedback; however, negative perceptions may limit their practical use, and little is known about how pre-service teachers' perceptions and behavioral responses differ by feedback source. This study investigates how the perceived source of feedback - LLM, expert, or peer - influences feedback perception and uptake, and whether recognition accuracy and feedback quality moderate these effects. In a randomized experiment with 273 pre-service teachers, participants received written feedback on a mathematics learning goal, identified its source, rated feedback perceptions across five dimensions (fairness, usefulness, acceptance, willingness to improve, positive and negative affect), and revised the learning goal according to the feedback (i.e. feedback uptake). Results revealed that LLM-generated feedback received the highest ratings in fairness and usefulness, leading to the highest uptake (52%). Recognition accuracy significantly moderated the effect of feedback source on perception, with particularly positive evaluations when LLM feedback was falsely ascribed to experts. Higher-quality feedback was consistently assigned to experts, indicating an expertise heuristic in source judgments. Regression analysis showed that only feedback quality significantly predicted feedback uptake. Findings highlight the need to address source-related biases and promote feedback and AI literacy in teacher education.
Study at a glance
  • Question: Does believing feedback came from an AI, expert, or peer change how future teachers accept and use it?
  • Setting and data: 273 pre-service teachers receiving written feedback on a mathematics learning goal
  • Method: Randomized experiment
Why it matters

Large language models are increasingly used to provide educational feedback, but negative perceptions may limit their practical use. Yet, little is known about how pre-service teachers' perceptions and behavioral responses differ depending on the feedback source.

Key findings
  • Among 273 pre-service teachers reviewing math goals, AI-generated feedback received the highest fairness and usefulness ratings, leading to the highest uptake at 52%.
  • Pre-service teachers gave particularly positive evaluations when they mistakenly believed AI-generated feedback was written by human experts.
  • Only feedback quality significantly predicted whether pre-service teachers actually used the feedback to revise their learning goals.

Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.

What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?