Cited by 162Student Assessment and FeedbackArtificial Intelligence in EducationEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

Students’ engagement with ChatGPT feedback: implications for student feedback literacy in the context of generative artificial intelligence

Open access
Zhan, Ying, Yan, Zi·2026·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02602938.2025.2471821

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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
Venue
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
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
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