Date
Publisher
arXiv
As generative AI transforms educational feedback practices, understanding students' perceptions of different feedback providers becomes crucial for effective implementation. This study addresses a critical gap by comparing undergraduate students' trust in AI-generated, human-created, and human-AI co-produced feedback, informing how institutions can adapt feedback practices in this new era. Through a within-subject experiment with 91 participants, we investigated factors predicting students' ability to distinguish between feedback types, perception of feedback quality, and potential biases to AI involvement. Findings revealed that students generally preferred AI and co-produced feedback over human feedback in terms of perceived usefulness and objectivity. Only AI feedback suffered a decline in perceived genuineness when feedback sources were revealed, while co-produced feedback maintained its positive perception. Educational AI experience improved students' ability to identify AI feedback and increased their trust in all feedback types, while general AI experience decreased perceived usefulness and credibility. Male students consistently rated all feedback types as less valuable than their female and non-binary counterparts. These insights inform evidence-based guidelines for integrating AI into higher education feedback systems while addressing trust concerns and fostering AI literacy among students.
Study at a glance
- Question: How do undergraduate students perceive and trust feedback created by AI, humans, or both together?
- Setting and data: 91 undergraduate students
- Method: Experiment where each participant evaluated multiple feedback types (within-subject experiment)
Why it matters
As generative AI transforms educational feedback practices, understanding students' perceptions of different feedback providers is crucial for effective implementation. There is a critical gap in comparing students' trust across AI-generated, human-created, and co-produced feedback.
Key findings
- In an experiment with 91 undergraduate students, participants preferred AI and co-produced feedback over human feedback in usefulness and objectivity.
- Purely AI-generated feedback lost perceived genuineness once its source was revealed, while human-AI co-produced feedback maintained its positive rating.
- Prior educational AI experience increased students' trust across all feedback types, whereas general AI experience reduced perceived feedback usefulness and credibility.
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?
Why use AI?
Study design
