An official website of the United States government
Providing rich, constructive feedback to students is essential for supporting and enhancing their learning. Recent advancements in Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly with large language models (LLMs), present new opportunities to deliver scalable, repeatable, and instant feedback, effectively making abundant a resource that has historically been scarce and costly. From a technical perspective, this approach is now feasible due to breakthroughs in AI and Natural Language Processing (NLP). While the potential educational benefits are compelling, implementing these technologies also introduces a host of ethical considerations that must be thoughtfully addressed. One of the core advantages of AI systems is their ability to automate routine and mundane tasks, potentially freeing up human educators for more nuanced work. However, the ease of automation risks a “tyranny of the majority”, where the diverse needs of minority or unique learners are overlooked, as they may be harder to systematize and less straightforward to accommodate. Ensuring inclusivity and equity in AI-generated feedback, therefore, becomes a critical aspect of responsible AI implementation in education. The process of developing machine learning models that produce valuable, personalized, and authentic feedback also requires significant input from human domain experts. Decisions around whose expertise is incorporated, how it is captured, and when it is applied have profound implications for the relevance and quality of the resulting feedback. Additionally, the maintenance and continuous refinement of these models are necessary to adapt feedback to evolving contextual, theoretical, and student-related factors. Without ongoing adaptation, feedback risks becoming obsolete or mismatched with the current needs of diverse student populations. Addressing these challenges is essential not only for ethical integrity but also for building the operational trust needed to integrate AI-driven systems as valuable tools in contemporary education. Thoughtful planning and deliberate choices are needed to ensure that these solutions truly benefit all students, allowing AI to support an inclusive and dynamic learning environment.
more »
« less
Potential pitfalls of false positives
Automated writing evaluation (AWE) systems automatically assess and provide students with feedback on their writing. Despite learning benefits, students may not effectively interpret and utilize AI-generated feedback, thereby not maximizing their learning outcomes. A closely related issue is the accuracy of the systems, that students may not understand, are not perfect. Our study investigates whether students differentially addressed false positive and false negative AI-generated feedback errors on their science essays. We found that students addressed nearly all the false negative feedback; however, they addressed less than one-fourth of the false positive feedback. The odds of addressing a false positive feedback was 99% lower than addressing a false negative feedback, representing significant missed opportunities for revision and learning. We discuss the implications of these findings in the context of students’ learning.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2010483
- PAR ID:
- 10515210
- Publisher / Repository:
- International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education 2024
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education 2024 Proceedings
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- AI Accuracy, Automated Feedback, Science Writing.
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Recife, Brazil
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Students are often tasked in engaging with activities where they have to learn skills that are tangential to the learning outcomes of a course, such as learning a new software. The issue is that instructors may not have the time or the expertise to help students with such tangential learning. In this paper, we explore how AI-generated feedback can provide assistance. Specifically, we study this technology in the context of a constructionist curriculum where students learn about experimental research through the creation of a gamified experiment. The AI-generated feedback gives a formative assessment on the narrative design of student-designed gamified experiments, which is important to create an engaging experience. We find that students critically engaged with the feedback, but that responses varied among students. We discuss the implications for AI-generated feedback systems for tangential learning.more » « less
-
Hoadley, C; Wang, XC (Ed.)Helping students learn how to write is essential. However, students have few opportunities to develop this skill, since giving timely feedback is difficult for teachers. AI applications can provide quick feedback on students’ writing. But, ensuring accurate assessment can be challenging, since students’ writing quality can vary. We examined the impact of students’ writing quality on the error rate of our natural language processing (NLP) system when assessing scientific content in initial and revised design essays. We also explored whether aspects of writing quality were linked to the number of NLP errors. Despite finding that students’ revised essays were significantly different from their initial essays in a few ways, our NLP systems’ accuracy was similar. Further, our multiple regression analyses showed, overall, that students’ writing quality did not impact our NLP systems’ accuracy. This is promising in terms of ensuring students with different writing skills get similarly accurate feedback.more » « less
-
This exploratory study focuses on the use of ChatGPT, a generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tool, by undergraduate engineering students in lab report writing in the major. Literature addressing the impact of ChatGPT and AI on student writing suggests that such technologies can both support and limit students' composing and learning processes. Acknowledging the history of writing with technologies and writing as technology, the development of GAI warrants attention to pedagogical and ethical implications in writing-intensive engineering classes. This pilot study investigates how the use of ChatGPT impacts students’ lab writing outcomes in terms of rhetorical knowledge, critical thinking and composing, knowledge of conventions, and writing processes. A group of undergraduate volunteers (n= 7) used ChatGPT to revise their original engineering lab reports written without using ChatGPT. A comparative study was conducted between original lab report samples and revisions by directly assessing students’ lab reports in gateway engineering lab courses. A focus group was conducted to learn their experiences and perspectives on ChatGPT in the context of engineering lab report writing. Implementing ChatGPT in the revision writing process could result in improving engineering students’ lab report quality due to students’ enhanced lab report genre understanding. At the same time, the use of ChatGPT also leads students to provide false claims, incorrect lab procedures, or extremely broad statements, which are not valued in the engineering lab report genre.more » « less
-
Automated feedback can provide students with timely information about their writing, but students' willingness to engage meaningfully with the feedback to revise their writing may be influenced by their perceptions of its usefulness. We explored the factors that may have influenced 339, 8th-grade students’ perceptions of receiving automated feedback on their writing and whether their perceptions impacted their revisions and writing improvement. Using HLM and logistic regression analyses, we found that: 1) students with more positive perceptions of the automated feedback made revisions that resulted in significant improvements in their writing, and 2) students who received feedback indicating they included more important ideas in their essays had significantly higher perceptions of the usefulness of the feedback, but were significantly less likely to engage in substantive revisions. Implications and the importance of helping students evaluate and reflect on the feedback to make substantive revisions, no matter their initial feedback, are discussedmore » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Proceeding:
- https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64315-6_45
