Students’ engagement with ChatGPT feedback: implications for student feedback literacy in the context of generative artificial intelligence
Open accessAbstract
Student feedback engagement is often reported as unsatisfactorily low, undermining the effectiveness of feedback in higher education. The emergence of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) has created new opportunities to enhance student feedback engagement through its unique affordances. However, assuming that GenAI is a panacea for feedback disengagement can be misleading, as it also presents substantial challenges. Therefore, it is essential to understand how students engage comprehensively with GenAI feedback. However, such understanding is lacking in literature. To close the research gaps, this study investigated how college students engaged with the feedback provided by ChatGPT on their International English Language Testing System writing tasks. Sixteen undergraduates voluntarily participated in unobtrusive observations and stimulated recall interviews. Their feedback engagement was classified into cognitive, metacognitive, affective and behavioural aspects. The findings reveal that participants employed more cognitive strategies than metacognitive ones, experienced minimal emotional resistance, and exhibited varying levels of trust in ChatGPT’s feedback. Additionally, the participants’ behavioural engagement appeared superficial when requesting feedback, interacting with ChatGPT and revising their writing tasks. Student feedback literacy, including prompt engineering, evaluative judgement, emotional reflexivity, ethical decision-making and meta-cognitive skills, should be cultivated to foster students’ active engagement in a GenAI context.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 50 · Cited by 162
- Authors
- Zhan, Y., & Yan, Z.
- Affiliations
- Education University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Corresponding author
- Zhan, Ying
- ORCID
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2025-03-05
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 821-834
- ISSN
- 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-297X
- OpenAlex
- W4408220441
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 118 · 2025: 44
- FWCI
- 501.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, generative AI, feedback literacy, writing feedback, IELTS writing, prompt engineering, metacognition, emotional resistance, ethical decision-making, university students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review