The study explores how undergraduate computing students in Saudi Arabia perceive AI‑generated writing feedback when they are explicitly told that ChatGPT, not a human instructor, produced the score and comments. Through qualitative reflections, four themes emerged: students found the feedback useful for surface‑level revisions, recognized AI’s contextual and pedagogical limits, trusted the feedback conditionally—separating its utility from its authority—and reaffirmed the human instructor’s role as the ultimate grading authority. The findings highlight a clear distinction students make between feedback usefulness and evaluative authority, treating them as separate judgments rather than opposing ends of a single approval scale.
arXiv:2608. 11625v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Feedback processes strongly influence student learning, yet their educational value depends on addressing two distinct challenges: providing high-quality, timely, and individualised feedback at scale, and supporting students to interpret, evaluate, and act on that feedback productively.
arXiv:2505. 00100v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Background and Context.
Feedback processes strongly influence student learning, yet their educational value depends on addressing two distinct challenges: providing high-quality, timely, and individualised feedback at scale, and supporting students to interpret, evaluate, and act on that feedback productively. Generative AI offers a credible means of addressing the provision challenge, but students' uptake of AI-generated feedback remains limited.
arXiv:2608. 11625v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Feedback processes strongly influence student learning, yet their educational value depends on addressing two distinct challenges: providing high-quality, timely, and individualised feedback at scale, and supporting students to interpret, evaluate, and act on that feedback productively.
arXiv:2608. 12351v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has challenged the validity of unsupervised online assessment, especially in technical subjects where plausible answers can be produced with little effort.
arXiv:2606. 12422v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The integration of large language models (LLMs) into educational assessment represents a transformative shift in classroom grading practices.
arXiv:2606. 28749v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Although most undergraduates now use large language models (LLMs), a form of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for academic writing, no validated method distinguishes the qualitatively different ways students rely on them.
Exposía is the first public dataset linking academic writing and feedback in higher education, comprising student research project proposals, peer and instructor comments, and free-text reviews collected from a Computer Science course. It includes human assessment scores based on a fine‑grained, pedagogically‑grounded schema for both writing and feedback. The dataset is used to benchmark large language models on automated scoring of proposals and student reviews, revealing that different LLMs excel at each task and that closed‑source models outperform open‑weight ones, while a multi‑aspect prompting strategy proves most effective for classroom deployment.
arXiv:2608.21391v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In this research-to-practice paper we present a survey that can be used to assess students' AI knowledge. As the use of artificial intelligence (AI),...
arXiv:2607. 24755v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This full research paper examines how different forms of learner-AI interaction relate to learning outcomes in object-oriented programming (OOP) courses.
arXiv:2607. 14301v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As generative AI (GenAI) becomes increasingly embedded in undergraduate academic writing, how students rely on these tools, rather than simply whether they use them, has become a central question for learning, academic integrity, and educational equity.
The study examines how generative AI tools like ChatGPT perform on typical first‑year undergraduate mathematics assessment questions. By generating, transcribing, and blind‑marking AI responses to eight assessments covering the entire curriculum, the authors find that AI attains a first‑class level of performance, with consistency across modules that exceeds that of students in invigilated exams. The results suggest a need to redesign mathematics assessments to address the impact of generative AI.