The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
AI feedback: Moving beyond the hype to integrating it into a coherent feedback pedagogy
Open accessAbstract
Background The advent of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) has brought about more platforms to give automated instantaneous feedback to student writing. This paper reports on the use of one such platform in an after-school tuition program offered to students from financially disadvantaged families. Methods This two-year case study sought to examine the impact of this intervention on 21 students (aged 13-14). These participants, from different schools, were enrolled in the programme that aimed to improve their English language skills with weekly 2-hour sessions. These sessions incorporated the use of an AI-based application (Scribo) that can quickly analyse submitted work for technical aspects such as grammar, word choice, and punctuation. This article reports findings from interviews with both students and their tutors. The qualitative data were analysed using Bandura’s model of triadic reciprocality comprising environmental, personal and behavioural factors. Results and conclusion The findings showed how students generally perceived AI-generated feedback (AIF) positively. However, the positive effects on their will and skill to improve their work is also largely due to the overall classroom routines adopted. The paper discusses theoretical, policy and pedagogical implications of using AIF in mainstream K12 classrooms which adopt such platforms too.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905
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
(2022) · doi:10.1787/53f23881-en · Cited by 1,507
A Review of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education from 2010 to 2020
Zhai, X., Chu, X., Chai, C. S., Jong, M. S. Y., Istenic, A., Spector, M., Liu, J.-B., Yuan, J., & Li, Y. (2021) · Complexity · doi:10.1155/2021/8812542 · Cited by 1,364
The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543061002213 · Cited by 1,313
A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements
Panadero, E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2022) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416 · Cited by 389
Fuchs, K. (2023) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1166682 · Cited by 353
Activity Theory and Distributed Cognition: Or What Does CSCW Need to DO with Theories?
Halverson, C. A. (2002) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1023/a:1015298005381 · Cited by 283
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- A Bandura, 2001, Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective., Annu Rev Psychol., 52, 1-26, 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1 · DOI · Paper page
- P Black, 2010, Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment, 92, 10.1177/003172171009200119 · DOI · Paper page
- G Brown, 2023, In defence of psychometric measurement: a systematic review of contemporary self-report feedback inventories., Educ Psychol., 58, 178-192, 10.1080/00461520.2023.2208670 · DOI
- M Dennis, 2012, The impact of MOOCs on higher education., Coll Univ., 88, 24-30
- N Elmqaddem, 2019, Augmented reality and virtual reality in education. Myth or reality?, International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning., 14, 234-242, 10.3991/ijet.v14i03.9289 · DOI
- C Fong, 2023, “Feedback to the future”: advancing motivational and emotional perspectives in feedback research., Educ Psychol., 58, 146-161, 10.1080/00461520.2022.2134135 · DOI
- N Frey, 2018, Chapter 8: Mindframes of schools., Developing Assessment-Capable Visible Learners, Grades K-12: Maximizing Skill, Will, and Thrill, 135-149
- R Goh, 2023, What happens in the black box in which students engage with feedback?, Unpacking Students’ Engagement with Feedback: Pedagogy and Partnership in Practice, 9-25
- Y Han, 2021, How technology tools impact writing performance, lexical complexity, and perceived self-regulated learning strategies in EFL academic writing: a comparative study., Front Psychol., 12, 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.752793 · DOI
- I Ku, 2022, Does shadow education contribute to inequality?, Asia Pac J Educ., 10.1080/02188791.2022.2114424 · DOI
- K Lam, 2023, From discrete feedback practices to a coherent feedback pedagogy., Unpacking Students’ Engagement with Feedback: Pedagogy and Partnership in Practice., 59-84
- A Lipnevich, 2022, Receptivity to instructional feedback: a validation study in the secondary school context in Singapore., Eur J Psychol Assess., 10.1027/1015-5759/a000733 · DOI
- J Ma, 2021, The digital divide at school and at home: a comparison between schools by socioeconomic level across 47 countries., Int J Comp Sociol., 62, 115-140, 10.1177/00207152211023540 · DOI
- A MacPhail, 2010, 'We had to do intelligent thinking during recent PE': Students' and teachers' experiences of assessment for learning for post-primary physical education., Assess Educ., 17, 23-39, 10.1080/09695940903565412 · DOI
- E Panadero, 2023, Toward a paradigm shift in feedback research: five further steps influenced by self-regulated learning theory., Educ Psychol., 58, 193-204, 10.1080/00461520.2023.2223642 · DOI
- J Park, 2019, Implications of AI-based grammar checker in EFL learning and testing: Korean high school students’ writing., The Korea English Language Testing Association., 14, 11-39, 10.37244/ela.2019.14.11 · DOI
- H Tay, 2022, Students’ engagement across a typology of teacher feedback practices., Educ Res Policy Pract., 21, 427-445, 10.1007/s10671-022-09315-2 · DOI
- N Winstone, 2023, Toward a cohesive psychological science of effective feedback., Educational Psychologist., 58, 111-129, 10.1080/00461520.2023.2224444 · DOI
- T Wongvorachan, 2022, Artificial Intelligence: transforming the future of feedback in education., Journal of Applied Testing Technology., 23, 95-116
- J Xia, 2021, AI-based iWrite assisted english writing teaching., 158-165, 10.1007/978-3-030-89511-2_19 · DOI
- B Zimmerman, 2000, Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective., 13-39, 10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7 · DOI · Paper page
- B Zimmerman, 2008, Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects., Am Educ Res J., 45, 166-183, 10.3102/0002831207312909 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AI-Assisted Instruction: Teachers’ Practices and Parents’ Perspectives
H. Bowle, M., & Gaza, J. S. (2025) · International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology · doi:10.38124/ijisrt/25jun939
Metadata
- Authors
- Tay, H. Y.
- Corresponding author
- Tay, Hui Yong
- ORCID
- Tay, Hui Yong
- Venue
- Routledge Open Research
- Publisher
- F1000 Research Ltd
- Published
- 2024-06-21
- Volume
- 3
- Pages
- 26
- ISSN
- 2755-1245 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4399889677
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 10.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Routledge Open Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC) at https://www.cdac.org.sg/en/
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Keywords
- AI-generated feedback, automated writing feedback, low-income students, English proficiency, self-efficacy, student perceptions of AI
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