{"title":"人工智能生成的反馈与教师反馈的比较：在感知反馈质量上无显著差异，在表现上也无显著差异","authors":"Şeyma Çağlar-Özhan, Perihan Tekeli, Selay Arkün-Kocadere","doi":"10.1111/jcal.70134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Feedback is an essential part of the educational process as it enriches students' learning experiences, provides information about their current performance, shows them what is lacking in achieving goals, and provides guidance on the strategies needed to achieve those goals. Teachers, especially in crowded classrooms, often have difficulty allocating enough time to provide feedback. ChatGPT has the potential to deliver feedback more efficiently and effectively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of ChatGPT-generated feedback in students' project proposal development process. Therefore, ChatGPT-generated and instructor's feedback are compared in terms of perceived feedback quality and performance of students.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>In the study, a post-test control group experimental design was used. A total of 48 students enrolled in a blended course at a state university participated in the study for 6 weeks. The study was conducted using a randomised post-test-only control group experimental design. Students were asked to prepare a project proposal and feedback was given on each task. While the control group received instructor feedback, the experimental group received ChatGPT feedback. Data were collected via the Formative Feedback Perceptions Scale, and the students' project proposals were graded based on the rubric to evaluate their performance.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results and Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>According to the Mann–Whitney <i>U</i> test analysis, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and the control group regarding both students' perceived feedback quality and performance. In conclusion, it can be argued that when guided by the appropriate prompts and asked to examine assignments of similar complexity to those in this study, ChatGPT can provide feedback of similar quality and equivalence to the feedback provided by instructors. In this way, it seems possible to improve students' learning as much as an instructor with individualised feedback by ChatGPT. Finally, it should be noted that these findings are within the limitations of the specific context of project proposal development, reliance on self-reported data, and the experimental nature of the study; it is recommended to evaluate the effectiveness of AI-generated feedback in different contexts.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48071,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Computer Assisted Learning","volume":"41 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of AI-Generated and Instructor Feedback: No Significant Difference in Perceived Feedback Quality and Neither on Performance\",\"authors\":\"Şeyma Çağlar-Özhan, Perihan Tekeli, Selay Arkün-Kocadere\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jcal.70134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Feedback is an essential part of the educational process as it enriches students' learning experiences, provides information about their current performance, shows them what is lacking in achieving goals, and provides guidance on the strategies needed to achieve those goals. Teachers, especially in crowded classrooms, often have difficulty allocating enough time to provide feedback. ChatGPT has the potential to deliver feedback more efficiently and effectively.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of ChatGPT-generated feedback in students' project proposal development process. Therefore, ChatGPT-generated and instructor's feedback are compared in terms of perceived feedback quality and performance of students.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>In the study, a post-test control group experimental design was used. A total of 48 students enrolled in a blended course at a state university participated in the study for 6 weeks. The study was conducted using a randomised post-test-only control group experimental design. Students were asked to prepare a project proposal and feedback was given on each task. While the control group received instructor feedback, the experimental group received ChatGPT feedback. Data were collected via the Formative Feedback Perceptions Scale, and the students' project proposals were graded based on the rubric to evaluate their performance.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results and Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>According to the Mann–Whitney <i>U</i> test analysis, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and the control group regarding both students' perceived feedback quality and performance. In conclusion, it can be argued that when guided by the appropriate prompts and asked to examine assignments of similar complexity to those in this study, ChatGPT can provide feedback of similar quality and equivalence to the feedback provided by instructors. In this way, it seems possible to improve students' learning as much as an instructor with individualised feedback by ChatGPT. Finally, it should be noted that these findings are within the limitations of the specific context of project proposal development, reliance on self-reported data, and the experimental nature of the study; it is recommended to evaluate the effectiveness of AI-generated feedback in different contexts.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48071,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Computer Assisted Learning\",\"volume\":\"41 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Computer Assisted Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.70134\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Computer Assisted Learning","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.70134","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of AI-Generated and Instructor Feedback: No Significant Difference in Perceived Feedback Quality and Neither on Performance
Background
Feedback is an essential part of the educational process as it enriches students' learning experiences, provides information about their current performance, shows them what is lacking in achieving goals, and provides guidance on the strategies needed to achieve those goals. Teachers, especially in crowded classrooms, often have difficulty allocating enough time to provide feedback. ChatGPT has the potential to deliver feedback more efficiently and effectively.
Objective
This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of ChatGPT-generated feedback in students' project proposal development process. Therefore, ChatGPT-generated and instructor's feedback are compared in terms of perceived feedback quality and performance of students.
Method
In the study, a post-test control group experimental design was used. A total of 48 students enrolled in a blended course at a state university participated in the study for 6 weeks. The study was conducted using a randomised post-test-only control group experimental design. Students were asked to prepare a project proposal and feedback was given on each task. While the control group received instructor feedback, the experimental group received ChatGPT feedback. Data were collected via the Formative Feedback Perceptions Scale, and the students' project proposals were graded based on the rubric to evaluate their performance.
Results and Conclusion
According to the Mann–Whitney U test analysis, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and the control group regarding both students' perceived feedback quality and performance. In conclusion, it can be argued that when guided by the appropriate prompts and asked to examine assignments of similar complexity to those in this study, ChatGPT can provide feedback of similar quality and equivalence to the feedback provided by instructors. In this way, it seems possible to improve students' learning as much as an instructor with individualised feedback by ChatGPT. Finally, it should be noted that these findings are within the limitations of the specific context of project proposal development, reliance on self-reported data, and the experimental nature of the study; it is recommended to evaluate the effectiveness of AI-generated feedback in different contexts.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Computer Assisted Learning is an international peer-reviewed journal which covers the whole range of uses of information and communication technology to support learning and knowledge exchange. It aims to provide a medium for communication among researchers as well as a channel linking researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. JCAL is also a rich source of material for master and PhD students in areas such as educational psychology, the learning sciences, instructional technology, instructional design, collaborative learning, intelligent learning systems, learning analytics, open, distance and networked learning, and educational evaluation and assessment. This is the case for formal (e.g., schools), non-formal (e.g., workplace learning) and informal learning (e.g., museums and libraries) situations and environments. Volumes often include one Special Issue which these provides readers with a broad and in-depth perspective on a specific topic. First published in 1985, JCAL continues to have the aim of making the outcomes of contemporary research and experience accessible. During this period there have been major technological advances offering new opportunities and approaches in the use of a wide range of technologies to support learning and knowledge transfer more generally. There is currently much emphasis on the use of network functionality and the challenges its appropriate uses pose to teachers/tutors working with students locally and at a distance. JCAL welcomes: -Empirical reports, single studies or programmatic series of studies on the use of computers and information technologies in learning and assessment -Critical and original meta-reviews of literature on the use of computers for learning -Empirical studies on the design and development of innovative technology-based systems for learning -Conceptual articles on issues relating to the Aims and Scope
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
