The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Generative artificial intelligence as an enabler of student feedback engagement: a framework
Open accessAbstract
Despite the recognised importance of feedback in enhancing student learning, feedback practices in higher education have not achieved the expected effects. A primary issue lies in student disengagement, exacerbated by contextual constraints such as large classes and limited curriculum space and time. The advent of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) may help overcome these contextual constraints. However, GenAI also poses substantial challenges and ethical dilemmas during the feedback process. Meanwhile, it is essential to recognise that the feedback environment created by GenAI inevitably interacts with students’ personal factors, especially their feedback literacy, to jointly influence feedback engagement. Therefore, a question remains whether GenAI can be an effective enabler of student feedback engagement. To answer the question, based on a literature review and theoretical synthesis, we scrutinise student engagement with GenAI in three stages of the feedback process and discuss the interplay of student feedback literacy and the GenAI context. We suggest that the extent to which students are engaged with feedback depends on their degree of feedback literacy as orchestrated in the GenAI context. Finally, we propose a cyclical feedback framework consisting of feedback forethought, feedback control and feedback retrospect to enable student feedback engagement in a GenAI world.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This is reflected in the empirical literature, which has predominantly evaluated AI-generated feedback comments as static products, comparing their perceived quality or outcomes with human or peer-generated alternatives, rather than examining how the design of the feedback encounter itself shapes engagement [22, 23].”
From Making AI-Generated Feedback Matter: A Large-Scale Study of Feedback Workflows and Student Enactment (2026) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“more recent scholarship increasingly argues that GenAI should be treated as a catalyst for much-needed pedagogical innovation particularly in assessment and feedback, rather than merely resisting or only mitigating the risks (Corbin et al., 2025b; Zhan et al., 2025).”
From Co-creating custom GPTs: an autoethnographic study of undergraduate students as partners in generative AI innovation (2026) · cites this paper as Zhan et al., 2025
Citations
Cites
Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches
Creswell, J. W. (1994) · Cited by 35,213
Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches
ภู่พันธ์, ศ. (2018) · วารสารวิธีวิทยาการวิจัย (Journal of Research Methodology: JRM) · Cited by 12,776
School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543074001059 · Cited by 12,581 · cited 1×
“The widely used categorisation of feedback engagement is based on the tripartite model of engagement proposed by Fredricks et al. (2004), namely, behavioural, cognitive and affective dimensions (e.g., Ellis, 2010; Shen & Chong, 2023; Zhang, 2022).”
ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/5er8f · Cited by 7,552
ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 · Cited by 7,326 · cited 3×
“Furthermore, GenAI provides personalised suggestions for students in non-judgemental language through a user-friendly interface (Huang et al., 2023; Wongvorachan et al., 2022) and could even directly revise students’ work or correct their mistakes if requested (Kasneci et al., 2023).”
On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 · Cited by 6,988 · cited 1×
“GenAI has been trained on datasets that dominantly reflect US standardised English conventions (Bender et al., 2021).”
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000) · Handbook of Self-Regulation · doi:10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50031-7 · Cited by 6,069 · cited 1×
“A pathway is suggested here based on a cyclical self-regulation learning model, which consists of three sequential phases, namely forethought, performance control and self-reflection (Zimmerman, 2000).”
Shute, V. J. (2008) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654307313795 · Cited by 4,631
The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 · Cited by 2,428 · cited 3×
“The stage of enacting feedback requires students to act upon their interpretation of the comments that they have received to produce subsequent work that closes the feedback loop (Carless & Boud, 2018).”
Self-citationChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 10.3102/00346543029848 · DOI
- Wongvorachan, T., Lai, K. W., Bulut, O., Tsai, Y.-S., & Chen, G. (2022). Artificial intelligence: Transforming the future of feedback in education. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 23(1), 95–116. http://jattjournal.net/index.php/atp/article/view/170387
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Comparing Generative AI and teacher feedback: student perceptions of usefulness and trustworthiness
Henderson, M., Bearman, M., Chung, J., Fawns, T., Buckingham Shum, S., Matthews, K. E., & de Mello Heredia, J. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2502582 · Cited by 211
“From a conceptual perspective, Zhan et al. (2025) propose that feedback engagement is a means of reconciling these feedback skills with their environment in terms of eliciting, processing and enacting feedback.”
Han, X., Peng, H., & Liu, M. (2025) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100714 · Cited by 70
Xie, X., Zhang, L. J., & Wilson, A. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15070884 · Cited by 25
Yin, X., Ye, J., Yu, S., Li, H., Liu, Q., & Zhao, G. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105434 · Cited by 16
Lin, X. Y. (2025) · The Australian Educational Researcher · doi:10.1007/s13384-025-00856-y · Cited by 13
Chen, S. C., Zhang, L., & Li, A. W. (2025) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2546349 · Cited by 13
Recalibrating academic expertise in the age of generative AI
Lin, Z., & Sohail, A. (2026) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2025.101473 · Cited by 17
Gu, J., Chen, J., & Yan, Z. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1736446 · Cited by 15
Self-citationThe care-full craft of feedback in an age of generative AI
Winstone, N., Gravett, K., Bearman, M., Noble, C., Jensen, L. X., Jones, A., & Nicola‐Richmond, K. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2643333 · Cited by 10
Chinese EFL learners’ engagement with ChatGPT feedback on academic writing: A case study in Malaysia
Kailin, Z., & Saeed, M. A. (2025) · Computers & composition/Computers and composition · doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102976 · Cited by 19
Amir, A. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16020318 · Cited by 8
A renaissance in feedback science? Reviewing and reimagining feedback research methods
Fong, C. J. (2025) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2025.102414 · Cited by 6
Alwafi, E. M. (2025) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2025.102215 · Cited by 6
Wang, Y., Hu, W., & Guo, Q. (2025) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2025.103967 · Cited by 8
Lai, C., Pan, M., Guo, K., & Cui, Y. (2026) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2026.105675 · Cited by 11
Chon, Y. V., & Shin, D. (2026) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1002/jcal.70259 · Cited by 8
Gámez‐Guadix, M., & Mateos‐Pérez, E. (2026) · Societies · doi:10.3390/soc16040107 · Cited by 5
Xiang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1790095 · Cited by 4
Huang, Y., Chen, S., Zhang, W., & Chen, M. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16060816 · Cited by 7
Ng, D. T. K., & Cheung, K. C. (2026) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410.2026.2668683 · Cited by 4
Lu, D., & Zeng, Y. (2026) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.70241 · Cited by 3
When Do Undergraduate Students Prefer AI? Insights into AI Scoring and Feedback
Yildirim-erbasli, S., Dibek, M. İ., Thomas, M. L., & Lesoway, N. (2026) · Behavioral Science · doi:10.3390/bs16071196 · Cited by 2
Lu, D., & Zeng, Y. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2653887 · Cited by 5
Mallitasig, N. M. H., López, L. A. Z., Pincha, N. V. C., & Ayala, M. M. P. (2026) · Revista Ciencia Innovadora · doi:10.64422/rci.v4n2.2026.170 · Cited by 2
Zhou, J., Zhao, N., Gao, X., & Han, X. (2026) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2026.102236 · Cited by 3
Zheng, L., Liu, Z. H., & Huang, Z. (2026) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-026-14024-x · Cited by 2
Feedback futures: Beyond the limits of human and GenAI capacities
Zhan, Y., Wood, J., Carless, D., & Yan, Z. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2672830 · Cited by 2
Self-citationStudents’ psychological biases towards teacher and AI-generated feedback: an experimental study
Haiyan, Y. U. (2026) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-026-04568-5 · Cited by 1
Xiong, J., & Li, F. (2026) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2026.100789 · Cited by 4
Rosa-Castillo, A., Castillo, F. C., Moreno-Munoz, G., Falcó‐Pegueroles, A., Angulo-Bahón, C., & Uehara, S. C. D. S. A. (2026) · Enfermería Clínica (English Edition) · doi:10.1016/j.enfcle.2026.502489 · Cited by 1
Kerwat, L., Donaldson, D. L., & Mahomed, A. (2026) · IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon67543.2026.11574316 · Cited by 1
Chen, S. C., Borchers, C., & Schunn, C. D. (2026) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2026.102489 · Cited by 1
Wu, M., & Ouyang, F. (2026) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-026-10211-x
Lo, S., Lea, T., Mavromoustakos, A., Joseph, B., Yii, M., Exintaris, B., Karunaratne, N., Pearson, D. L., Ritchie, T., Yuriev, E., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1818781
Making AI-Generated Feedback Matter: A Large-Scale Study of Feedback Workflows and Student Enactment
Alsaiari, O., Baghaei, N., Lodge, J. M., Gaševi'c, D., Winstone, N., & Khosravi, H. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.11625
“…the empirical literature, which has predominantly evaluated AI-generated feedback comments as static products, comparing their perceived quality or outcomes with human or peer-generated alternatives, rather than examining how the design of the feedback encounter itself shapes engagement [22, 23].”
Khoo, Z. H., & Hsu, T.-C. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-98197-5_38 · Cited by 1
Conceptualizing Online Feedback Engagement from a Sociomaterial Perspective: An Iceberg Model
Chen, S. C. (2025) · ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S) · doi:10.1145/3698205.3733934
Measurement and Application of AI Literacy in the Context of College English Writing
王, 安. (2025) · Modern Linguistics · doi:10.12677/ml.2025.13111147
Hamnett, H. J., & Seetohul, N. L. (2025) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c01369
Understanding Student’S Feedback Literacy in Online Peer Assessment
Song, A., Sha, Y., Zhang, J., Mamattursun, B., & Wu, X. (2025) · International Conference on Educational Technology (ICET) · doi:10.1109/icet67421.2025.11380426
A Systematic Literature Review of AI in Higher Education Assessment Across the MENA Region
Abukhalaf, S. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6776-7.ch001
Technology and L2 Grammar Instruction
Johnson, C., & Neumann, H. B. (2026) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal20876
Rosa-Castillo, A., Castillo, F. C., Moreno-Munoz, G., Falcó‐Pegueroles, A., Angulo-Bahón, C., & Uehara, S. C. D. S. A. (2026) · Enfermería Clínica · doi:10.1016/j.enfcli.2026.502489
Irwin, B., & Muller, T. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16040544 · Cited by 2
Wang, R., Xu, J., & Wang, Y. Y. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2026.2654834
Huo, H., & Cheng, Y. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6669317
GenAI Tools in Higher Learning: Assessing Student Usage and Awareness in Private Higher Education
Pramjeeth, S. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-8240-2_6
Conclusions and Implications for L2 Pedagogy and Assessment
Zhang, W., & Zhang, L. J. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-7445-2_8
Bezen, S., & Derman, İ. (2026) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410.2026.2680187
Hoo, H.-T., & Carless, D. R. (2026) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2026.2649006
A Deep Learning--Based Study on Quality Evaluation in Higher Continuing Education
Yang, H. (2026) · International Conference on Big Data and Informatization Education (ICBDIE) · doi:10.1145/3806980.3806992
Alibakhshi, G. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2679157
Sadegh¹, T., Mohammadi, M., Jahani, J., & Salimi, G. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9692563/v1
Rassal, C. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7472-7.ch014
Perez, C. V., Puente, Á. A., & Ordax, J. M. G. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-19763-4_36
Li, D., & Li, H. (2026) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2026.2684742
Meyer, J., Steinbach, M., Schiller, R., Mertens, U., Schaller, N.-J., Horbach, A., Fleckenstein, J., Köller, O., Kizilcec, R. F., & Jansen, T. (2026) · ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S) · doi:10.1145/3774398.3811602 · Cited by 1
Boonsongprasert, S., Pathak, S., Song, C., & Chen, L. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-29744-0_15
Characterising Student Behaviours with AI-Generated Feedback in Higher Education
Jin, F. J.-Y., Zhao, L., Barthakur, A., Baker, R. S., Dawson, S., & Joksimovíc, S. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-29788-4_78
Chuang, C. K., Dai, W., Li, T., Lin, J., Li, X., Fan, Y., & Gašević, D. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-29763-1_12
The Effects of Agent Type and Feedback Style on Self-Directed Learning: A Mixed-Methods Study
Han, X., Cao, J., Wang, Z., & Luo, H. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16071069 · Cited by 1
Fair Marking in the Generative AI Era: Introducing the Master’s Dissertation Marking Framework
Ada, M. B. (2026) · AI in Education · doi:10.3390/aieduc2030023
Student Perspectives on AI-Based Feedback in First-Year Writing
Pritts, N. (2026) · International Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.4018/ijitlhe.413093
Эдуардовна, К. А., Costley, J., & Fanguy, M. (2026) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2026.100390
Zhai, M., & Farhan, M. (2026) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2026.2687874
Zhang, Q., Chen, G., Wu, X., Niu, X., & Chiang, F. (2026) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2026.2680593
Feedback Literacy within Teacher Feedback vs. AI Feedback
Gökel, N., & Tüm, G. (2026) · Sınırsız Eğitim ve Araştırma Dergisi · doi:10.29250/sead.1867106
Oktoma, E., Nugraha, D., & Hidayat, A. (2026) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2026.100395
Xi, L., Chen, Q., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16081201
Transforming assessment in higher education in the era of generative AI
Zubtsova, Y. Y., Sushchenko, L., Шульга, Л., Andryushchenko, O., & Шульга, О. (2026) · Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education · doi:10.32674/n7pdhe28
Moryossef, I. G., & Emmanouil, C. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-01970-4
Yan, D. “. (2026) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.70328
Affordances and Challenges of GenAI Feedback in Primary Students’ Scientific Drawing
Cheung, K. K. C., Enzo, C. J., Cho, Y. H., Wan, Z. H., Wai, C. H., & Fung, P. W. (2026) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-026-10366-1 · Cited by 1
Chen, S. C., & To, J. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2711099
From traditional feedback literacy to AI feedback literacy: the mediating role of AI acceptance
Yıldız, M., Yazıcı, Z., & Peker, A. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2714393
Guo, M., Jiazhu, L., Yang, Y., & Sun, N. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1871610
Self-regulated writing and follow-up questioning in GenAI-supported after-school EFL practice
Li, Z. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2026.2719851
Cheng, Y., Xie, Y. X., Wang, R., Que, R., & Qiao, A. (2026) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2026.2721387
Transitional Technology: Why Literacy Should Be Good Enough
Myers, T. (2026) · Postdigital Science and Education · doi:10.1007/s42438-026-00692-y
Lu, D., & Zeng, Y. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2026.2728129
Peer feedback leads, GenAI complements: tracing revision patterns in undergraduate projects
Usher, M., & Faraon, M. (2026) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2026.2713629
Artificial Intelligence Driven Grading and Personalised Feedback in Higher Education AssessmentPreprint
Madwe, M. C. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10810076/v1
Omar, M. T., Moradi, P., Sasha, O., & Vassileva, J. (2026) · European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics · doi:10.1145/3822301.3822314
Norton, C., O’Keeffe, B. T., & Lynch, R. (2026) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2026.2733706
Yan, Z., Fang, Z., & Zou, W. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1939286 · Cited by 1
Self-citationEl‐Nasr, M. S. (2026) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2026.3654310
Using large language models to analyze student reflections on generative AI in graduate coursework
Muiznieks, V. J., Anderson, B. S., & Price, T. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-02231-0
Marín, F. J. S., & Legaz, A. J. C. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1947527
Hu, T., & Li, G. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1948880
Daya, H. (2026) · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.25.9.14
Huo, H., Cheng, Y., Peng, Y., & Xie, W. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2026.2745108
Thi, T. N., Thi, X. N., & Nam, C. D. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7625833
Jingye, L., Halim, H. A., & Saad, M. R. B. M. (2026) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2026.102376
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhan, Y., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Yan, Z.
- Affiliations
- Education University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Deakin University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Zhan, Ying
- Venue
- Higher Education Research & Development
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2025-03-19
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1289-1304
- ISSN
- 0729-4360 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8366
- OpenAlex
- W4408647652
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 79 · 2025: 15
- FWCI
- 290.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Higher Education Research & Development (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- The Education University of Hong Kong (#04A47)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
- Keywords
- generative AI, feedback literacy, student engagement, feedback in higher education, feedback framework, feedback control, large classes
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
