Agentic data science with the Data Agent Kit
cloud.google.com·7h ago
AI Research
arXiv CS.AI·Sep 7·5 min read
Who Should Grade My Work? Student Perspectives on Transparent AI-Assisted Writing Assessment in Higher Education
TL;DR
A study explored student perceptions of AI-generated feedback in writing assessments, revealing that while students found AI feedback useful, they still preferred human instructors for grading authority.
✦ Why It Matters
Consider integrating AI feedback tools while maintaining human oversight in grading processes.
Key Takeaways
- Use AI tools for initial feedback on writing tasks.
- Ensure human instructors remain the final authority on grades.
- Educate students on AI's limitations in assessment.
- Encourage reflection on the role of AI in learning.
Full Summary
As AI tools like ChatGPT are increasingly used in higher education for writing assessment, understanding student perspectives on AI-generated feedback is crucial. This qualitative study involved thirteen male undergraduate computing students who completed a writing task evaluated by ChatGPT using a rubric.
After receiving AI-generated scores and feedback, students reflected on their experiences. The analysis identified four key themes: the perceived usefulness of AI feedback for surface-level revisions, awareness of AI's limitations, conditional trust in AI feedback versus human evaluative authority, and the role of human instructors in grading.
Students appreciated AI feedback but maintained that human instructors should retain ultimate grading authority, highlighting a distinction between feedback utility and evaluative authority.