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. 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.
By Omar Alsaiari, Nilufar Baghaei, Jason M. Lodge, Dragan Ga\v{s}evi'c, Naomi Winstone, Hassan Khosravi
arXiv:2610.15231v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) models, particularly large language models (LLMs), are increasingly used in educational settings for tasks s...
By Jiawei Xiong, Cheng Tang, Hong Jiao, Hanna Choi
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.
By Omar Alsaiari, Nilufar Baghaei, Jason M. Lodge, Dragan Ga\v{s}evi'c, Naomi Winstone, Hassan Khosravi
arXiv:2505. 00100v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Background and Context.
By Ethan Dickey, Andres Bejarano, Rhianna Kuperus, B\'arbara Fagundes
arXiv:2607. 28630v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative AI (GenAI) holds significant promise for advancing educational equity among ethnic minority students by broadening access to learning resources and mitigating linguistic barriers.
By Deliang Wang, Cunling Bian
arXiv:2606. 05509v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to support self-directed learning, yet student interaction with such systems often remains unstructured, limiting engagement in deeper cognitive processes.
By Xiaoyu Hou, Bo Xiao, Hexu Liu, Shane Mueller
The paper introduces a prompt‑engineering framework that personalizes large language model (LLM) teaching assistants across disciplines by tailoring responses to six learner‑specific dimensions, creating 96 distinct learner profiles. It also analyzes student queries through Bloom’s Taxonomy to gauge cognitive complexity, encoding both learner attributes and cognitive assessments into structured prompts that condition the LLM without retraining. Experiments using NLP metrics and a small human study demonstrate that this approach yields perceptible differences in response style and structure, with statistical evidence linking specific learner attributes to measurable changes.
By Saptarshi Basu, Sandeep Kakar, Ashok Goel
arXiv:2606. 12086v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Contextualized assessment offers high ecological validity for evaluating creativity but introduces a critical challenge: observed performance may be confounded with cognitive proficiency (domain knowledge) and agency (willingness to engage).
By Mingjia Li, Jin Wu, Hong Qian, Wenhao Huang, Yiyang Huang, Yiwen Zhang, Chanjin Zheng, Xiangfeng Wang, Aimin Zhou, Jiajun Guo
arXiv:2606. 24104v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence(GenAI) is reshaping learning in higher education, with particularly pronounced implications for the humanities and social sciences(HSS), where learning outcomes are commonly expressed through written and interpretive forms that align closely with GenAI's capabilities.
By Lei Fan, Fangxue Liu
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.
By Riasat Islam (School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom), Thomas Roelleke (School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom)
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.
By Rayed AlGhamdi