Student Evaluation of Repeated AI Feedback Across a Semester of Writing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.16115v1
• Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 16:53:00 GMT
• Title: Student Evaluation of Repeated AI Feedback Across a Semester of Writing
• Abstract summary: Students obtained and assessed feedback from a self-selected AI tool using a uniform prompt.<n>Students found feedback helpful and actionable more often than not.<n>The study contributes descriptive classroom evidence on integration of AI feedback.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Generative AI is increasingly used for feedback in higher education, but evidence from repeated classroom use remains limited. This short paper analyses 2988 reflective essay-feedback-appraisal instances from 283 Estonian bachelor students across one semester. Students obtained and assessed feedback from a self-selected AI tool using a uniform prompt. The present analysis of the anonymized text corpus covers essay content, AI feedback, and its perceived helpfulness. Students found feedback helpful and actionable more often than not; about a tenth thought AI unhelpful, more so towards the end of the semester. We also analyzed essay reflection depth, and used a validated AI text classifier to estimate the share of essays that could be treated as likely unaided student writing. The study contributes descriptive classroom evidence on integration of AI feedback - a fast and scalable way to provide immediate writing advice, but not a self-contained route to better reflection. Benefits depend on whether students learn to use AI selectively and critically, without sliding into over-use harmful for the learning process.

Related papers

• Who Should Grade My Work? Student Perspectives on Transparent AI-Assisted Writing Assessment in Higher Education [0.0]
  The integration of GenAI tools into higher education assessment raises important questions about how students understand, interpret, and respond to AI-mediated evaluation.<n>This study reports findings from a qualitative pedagogical inquiry conducted in an undergraduate technical communication course for computing students at a Saudi public university.<n>Students were explicitly informed that ChatGPT had generated the score and feedback and were invited to reflect on the evaluation in writing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-04T16:49:33Z)
• No Hidden Prompts Needed! You Can Game AI Peer Review with Presentation-Only Revisions [43.03725702558361]
  We study a harder and more policy-relevant failure mode: no hidden text, no prompt injection, and no changes to methods, experiments, figures, equations, proofs, or numerical results.<n>The attacker modifies only presentation-level content, such as the abstract, contribution framing, related work, discussion, and narrative structure.<n>Across three mainstream AI reviewers, adversarial repackaging achieves a 75.1% attack success rate and a mean score gain of +1.21/10.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T08:30:18Z)
• Reimagining Assessment in the Age of Generative AI: Lessons from Open-Book Exams with ChatGPT [1.2183405753834562]
  Generative AI systems such as ChatGPT challenge traditional assumptions about academic assessment by enabling students to generate explanations, code, and solutions in real time.<n>Rather than attempting to restrict AI use, this study investigates how students actually interact with such systems during formal evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T16:33:33Z)
• Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation [51.53099943385505]
  This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews.<n>We identify two critical issues: 1) AI reviewers exhibit a hivemind effect of excessive agreement within and across papers that reduces perspective diversity.<n>We argue that addressing the peer review crisis requires a science of peer review automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T22:41:04Z)
• When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee? [73.47745294608072]
  We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level.<n>We use two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T08:03:32Z)
• AI-Mediated Feedback Improves Student Revisions: A Randomized Trial with FeedbackWriter in a Large Undergraduate Course [5.829384802817518]
  We introduce and deploy FeedbackWriter, a system that generates AI suggestions to teaching assistants (TAs) while they provide feedback on students' knowledge-intensive essays.<n>Students were randomly assigned to receive either handwritten feedback from TAs or AI-mediated feedback where TAs received suggestions from FeedbackWriter.<n>We found that students receiving AI-mediated feedback produced significantly higher-quality revisions, with gains increasing as TAs adopted more AI suggestions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T19:33:56Z)
• Exposía: Academic Writing Assessment of Exposés and Peer Feedback [56.428320613219306]
  We present Exposa, the first public dataset that connects writing and feedback assessment in higher education.<n>We use Exposa to benchmark state-of-the-art open-source large language models (LLMs) for two tasks: automated scoring of (1) the proposals and (2) the student reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-10T11:33:26Z)
• CoCoNUTS: Concentrating on Content while Neglecting Uninformative Textual Styles for AI-Generated Peer Review Detection [60.52240468810558]
  We introduce CoCoNUTS, a content-oriented benchmark built upon a fine-grained dataset of AI-generated peer reviews.<n>We also develop CoCoDet, an AI review detector via a multi-task learning framework, to achieve more accurate and robust detection of AI involvement in review content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T06:03:11Z)
• Exploring LLM-Generated Feedback for Economics Essays: How Teaching Assistants Evaluate and Envision Its Use [3.345149032274467]
  This project examines the prospect of using AI-generated feedback as suggestions to expedite and enhance human instructors' feedback provision.<n>We developed a feedback engine that generates feedback on students' essays based on grading rubrics used by the teaching assistants (TAs)<n>We performed think-aloud studies with 5 TAs over 20 1-hour sessions to have them evaluate the AI feedback, contrast the AI feedback with their handwritten feedback, and share how they envision using the AI feedback if they were offered as suggestions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T14:50:30Z)
• Supporting Students' Reading and Cognition with AI [12.029238454394445]
  We analyzed text from 124 sessions with AI tools to understand users' reading processes and cognitive engagement.<n>We propose design implications for future AI reading-support systems, including structured scaffolds for lower-level cognitive tasks.<n>We advocate for adaptive, human-in-the-loop features that allow students and instructors to tailor their reading experiences with AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T17:51:27Z)
• LLM-as-a-tutor in EFL Writing Education: Focusing on Evaluation of Student-LLM Interaction [40.76665188171691]
  In the context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing education, LLM-as-a-tutor can assist students by providing real-time feedback on their essays. To bridge this gap, we integrate pedagogical principles to assess student-LLM interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-08T15:00:04Z)
• PapagAI:Automated Feedback for Reflective Essays [48.4434976446053]
  We present the first open-source automated feedback tool based on didactic theory and implemented as a hybrid AI system. The main objective of our work is to enable better learning outcomes for students and to complement the teaching activities of lecturers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-10T11:05:51Z)
• AI, write an essay for me: A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays [66.36541161082856]
  ChatGPT and similar generative AI models have attracted hundreds of millions of users. This study compares human-written versus ChatGPT-generated argumentative student essays.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-24T12:58:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.