AI-generated feedback on writing: insights into efficacy and ENL student preference

IF 8.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education Pub Date : 2023-10-27 DOI:10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2
Juan Escalante, Austin Pack, Alex Barrett
{"title":"AI-generated feedback on writing: insights into efficacy and ENL student preference","authors":"Juan Escalante, Austin Pack, Alex Barrett","doi":"10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The question of how generative AI tools, such as large language models and chatbots, can be leveraged ethically and effectively in education is ongoing. Given the critical role that writing plays in learning and assessment within educational institutions, it is of growing importance for educators to make thoughtful and informed decisions as to how and in what capacity generative AI tools should be leveraged to assist in the development of students’ writing skills. This paper reports on two longitudinal studies. Study 1 examined learning outcomes of 48 university English as a new language (ENL) learners in a six-week long repeated measures quasi experimental design where the experimental group received writing feedback generated from ChatGPT (GPT-4) and the control group received feedback from their human tutor. Study 2 analyzed the perceptions of a different group of 43 ENLs who received feedback from both ChatGPT and their tutor. Results of study 1 showed no difference in learning outcomes between the two groups. Study 2 results revealed a near even split in preference for AI-generated or human-generated feedback, with clear advantages to both forms of feedback apparent from the data. The main implication of these studies is that the use of AI-generated feedback can likely be incorporated into ENL essay evaluation without affecting learning outcomes, although we recommend a blended approach that utilizes the strengths of both forms of feedback. The main contribution of this paper is in addressing generative AI as an automatic essay evaluator while incorporating learner perspectives.","PeriodicalId":13871,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The question of how generative AI tools, such as large language models and chatbots, can be leveraged ethically and effectively in education is ongoing. Given the critical role that writing plays in learning and assessment within educational institutions, it is of growing importance for educators to make thoughtful and informed decisions as to how and in what capacity generative AI tools should be leveraged to assist in the development of students’ writing skills. This paper reports on two longitudinal studies. Study 1 examined learning outcomes of 48 university English as a new language (ENL) learners in a six-week long repeated measures quasi experimental design where the experimental group received writing feedback generated from ChatGPT (GPT-4) and the control group received feedback from their human tutor. Study 2 analyzed the perceptions of a different group of 43 ENLs who received feedback from both ChatGPT and their tutor. Results of study 1 showed no difference in learning outcomes between the two groups. Study 2 results revealed a near even split in preference for AI-generated or human-generated feedback, with clear advantages to both forms of feedback apparent from the data. The main implication of these studies is that the use of AI-generated feedback can likely be incorporated into ENL essay evaluation without affecting learning outcomes, although we recommend a blended approach that utilizes the strengths of both forms of feedback. The main contribution of this paper is in addressing generative AI as an automatic essay evaluator while incorporating learner perspectives.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人工智能生成的写作反馈:对效能和ENL学生偏好的洞察
如何在教育中有效地利用大型语言模型和聊天机器人等生成式人工智能工具的问题正在进行中。鉴于写作在教育机构的学习和评估中发挥着至关重要的作用,对于教育者来说,就如何以及以何种能力利用生成式人工智能工具来帮助培养学生的写作技能,做出深思熟虑和明智的决定就变得越来越重要。本文报告了两项纵向研究。研究1在为期六周的重复测量准实验设计中检查了48名大学英语作为一门新语言(ENL)学习者的学习成果,实验组收到由ChatGPT (GPT-4)生成的写作反馈,对照组收到来自他们的人类导师的反馈。研究2分析了另一组43名enl的看法,他们从ChatGPT和他们的导师那里得到反馈。研究1的结果显示,两组之间的学习成果没有差异。研究2的结果显示,人们对人工智能生成的反馈和人工生成的反馈的偏好几乎持平,从数据中可以明显看出,这两种反馈形式都有明显的优势。这些研究的主要含义是,使用人工智能生成的反馈可能会被纳入ENL论文评估,而不会影响学习结果,尽管我们推荐一种利用两种反馈形式优势的混合方法。本文的主要贡献在于将生成式人工智能作为自动论文评估器,同时结合学习者的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
19.30
自引率
4.70%
发文量
59
审稿时长
76.7 days
期刊介绍: This journal seeks to foster the sharing of critical scholarly works and information exchange across diverse cultural perspectives in the fields of technology-enhanced and digital learning in higher education. It aims to advance scientific knowledge on the human and personal aspects of technology use in higher education, while keeping readers informed about the latest developments in applying digital technologies to learning, training, research, and management.
期刊最新文献
Using learning analytics to explore peer learning patterns in asynchronous gamified environments Unveiling the dynamics and impact of emotional presence in collaborative learning Higher education futures at the intersection of justice, hope, and educational technology An empirical analysis of EFL teachers’ digital literacy in Chinese higher education institutions Speculative futures for higher education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1