Human and AI-generated feedback in higher education: A systematic review of effectiveness and student perceptions
Open accessAbstract
This study aims to compare the feedback provided by human professors and ChatGPT on university students’ work and to report on students’ perceptions of both types of feedback. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Databases research included Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore, with additional gray literature sources, until October 2024. Inclusion criteria were cross-sectional studies evaluating university students’ work, comparing feedback from ChatGPT with human professors. Data extraction was performed using a standardized form, and risk of bias was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. A narrative synthesis of the results was made. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024566691. This review included 8 studies with 461 students. ChatGPT feedback was detailed and rapid, while human feedback was valued for its personalization and emotional support. Students appreciated the detailed and immediate nature of ChatGPT feedback but noted its lack of emotional nuance and context-specific guidance. Human feedback was preferred for addressing individual learning needs and providing affective support. A combination of both types of feedback to maximize benefits. ChatGPT can assist human teachers by providing detailed and timely feedback to university students. However, human supervision is essential to ensure feedback is nuanced and contextually appropriate. A hybrid approach can optimize the learning experience in higher education. Further research is necessary to explore AI applications in educational settings and understand their impact on learning outcomes.
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.
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?
Students' trust in AI, perceptions of feedback source, and AI literacy can influence whether they accept or act on AI-generated feedback comments.
“This consideration is particularly relevant because students' trust in AI, perceptions of feedback source, and AI literacy can influence whether they accept or act on AI-generated feedback comments [15, 46].”
From Making AI-Generated Feedback Matter: A Large-Scale Study of Feedback Workflows and Student Enactment (2026) · cites this paper as [46]
The Results of Individual Studies (page unavailable) report that students preferred instructor involvement when using ChatGPT and implemented instructor feedback more often than ChatGPT feedback, supporting a role for trust and feedback source in whether they act on comments. The review mentions AI literacy and technical competence, but does not establish that students’ AI literacy influences their acceptance or use of AI-generated feedback. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283 · see citing works
Students' voices on generative ai: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.00290 · Cited by 2,504 · see citing works
Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8 · Cited by 2,301 · see citing works
AI-generated feedback on writing: insights into efficacy and ENL student preference
Escalante, J., Pack, A., & Barrett, A. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2 · Cited by 589 · see citing works
Tong, S., Jia, N., Luo, X., & Fang, Z. (2021) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3322 · Cited by 531 · see citing works
Guo, K., & Wang, D. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0 · Cited by 449 · see citing works
Can Large Language Models Provide Feedback to Students? A Case Study on ChatGPT
Dai, W., Lin, J., Jin, H., Li, T., Tsai, Y.-S., Gašević, D., & Chen, G. (2023) · 2023 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) · doi:10.1109/icalt58122.2023.00100 · Cited by 395 · see citing works
Tossell, C. C., Tenhundfeld, N. L., Momen, A., Cooley, K., & de Visser, E. J. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2024.3355015 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
Bauer, E., Greisel, M., Kuznetsov, I., Berndt, M., Kollar, I., Dresel, M., Fischer, M. R., & Fischer, F. (2023) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13336 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- Al-Bashir, M., Kabir, M., & Rahman, I. (2016). The value and effectiveness of feedback in improving students' learning and professionalizing teaching in higher education. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(16), 38- 41.
- AlGhamdi, R. (2024). Exploring the impact of ChatGPT-generated feedback on technical writing skills of computing students: A blinded study. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 18901-18929. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12594-2 · DOI
- Cowling, M., Crawford, J., Allen, K. A., & Wehmeyer, M. (2023). Using leadership to leverage ChatGPT and artificial intelligence for undergraduate and postgraduate research supervision. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 89-103. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8598 · DOI · Paper page
- Dai, Y., Lai, S., Lim, C. P., & Liu, A. (2023b). ChatGPT and its impact on research supervision: Insights from Australian postgraduate research students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 74-88. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8843 · DOI · Paper page
- ElSayary, A. (2023). An investigation of teachers' perceptions of using ChatGPT as a supporting tool for teaching and learning in the digital era. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(3), 931-945. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12926 · DOI
- Haindl, P., & Weinberger, G. (2024). Students' experiences of using ChatGPT in an undergraduate programming course. IEEE Access, 12, 43519-43529. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3380909 · DOI
- Hammoda, B. (2024). ChatGPT for founding teams: An entrepreneurial pedagogical innovation. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(1), 154-173. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.530 · DOI
- Ho, W., & Lee, D. (2023). Enhancing engineering education in the Roblox metaverse: Utilizing ChatGPT for game development for electrical machine course. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering & Information Technology, 13(3), 1052-1058. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.13.3.18458 · DOI
- Ivanovic, I. (2023). Can AI-assisted essay assessment support teachers? A cross-sectional mixed-methods research conducted at the University of Montenegro. Annales-Analiza Istrske in Mediteranske Studije-Series Historia et Sociologia, 33(3), 571-590.
- Jukiewicz, M. (2024). The future of grading programming assignments in education: The role of ChatGPT in automating the assessment and feedback process. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52, Article 101522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101522 · DOI
- Lu, Q., Yao, Y., Xiao, L., Yuan, M., Wang, J., & Zhu, X. (2024). Can ChatGPT effectively complement teacher assessment of undergraduate students' academic writing? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(5), 616-633. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2301722 · DOI
- Messer, M., Brown, N. C., Kölling, M., & Shi, M. (2024). Automated grading and feedback tools for programming education: A systematic review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 1(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3636515 · DOI · Paper page
- Moola, S., Munn, Z., Tufanaru, C., Aromataris, E., Sears, K., Sfetcu, R., Currie, M., Qureshi, R., Mattis, P., Lisy, K., & Mu, P.-F. (2020). Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In E. Aromataris, & Z. Munn (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI.
- Muniandy, J., & Selvanathan, M. (2024). ChatGPT, a partnering tool to improve ESL learners' speaking skills: Case study in a public university, Malaysia. Teaching Public Administration, 43(1), 4-20. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/01447394241230152 · DOI
- Ngo, T. T. A. (2023). The perception by university students of the use of ChatGPT in education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 18(17), 4-19. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i17.39019 · DOI
- Ossa, C., & Willatt, C. (2023). Providing academic writing feedback assisted by generative artificial intelligence in initial teacher education contexts. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 16(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.32457/ejep.v16i2.2412 · DOI
- n71 · DOI · Paper page
- Wang, L., Chen, X., Wang, C., Xu, L., Shadiev, R., & Li, Y. (2024). ChatGPT's capabilities in providing feedback on undergraduate students' argumentation: A case study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 51, Article 101440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101440 · DOI
- Xiao, Y., & Zhi, Y. (2023). An exploratory study of EFL learners' use of ChatGPT for language learning tasks: Experience and perceptions. Languages, 8(3), Article 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030212 · DOI · Paper page
- Xu, X., Wang, X., Zhang, Y., & Zheng, R. (2024). Applying ChatGPT to tackle the side effects of personal learning environments from learner and learning perspective: An interview of experts in higher education. PLoS ONE, 19(1), Article e0295646. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295646 · DOI
- Yan, D. (2024). Feedback seeking abilities of L2 writers using ChatGPT: A mixed method multiple case study. Kybernetes, 54(7), 3757-3781. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2023-1933 · DOI
- Yang, W., Lee, H., Wu, R., Zhang, R., & Pan, Y. (2023). Using an artificial-intelligence-generated program for positive efficiency in filmmaking education: Insights from experts and students. Electronics, 12(23), Article 4813. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12234813 · DOI
- Zhai, X., Chu, X., Wang, M., Tsai, C. C., Liang, J. C., & Spector, J. M. (2024). A systematic review of stimulated recall (SR) in educational research from 2012 to 2022. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article 489.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
“This consideration is particularly relevant because students’ trust in AI, perceptions of feedback source, and AI literacy can influence whether they accept or act on AI-generated feedback comments [15, 46].”
- Authors
- Guardia-Paniura, C. H., Cueva-Luza, T., Cruz-Carpio, F. M., Ito-Díaz, R. R., Apaza-Paco, D. V., Rosas-Rojas, N., Mamani-Mamani, B., Terrero-Pérez, Á., Yaedú, R. Y. F., & Peralta-Mamani, M.
- Affiliations
- National Pedro Ruíz Gallo University, Lambayeque, PERU
- National University of Moquegua, Moquegua, PERU
- Universidad Tecnológica del Perú (PE)
- National University of Juliaca, Puno, PERU
- Universidad Nacional de San Agustin de Arequipa (PE)
- Peruvian Union University, Puno, PERU
- Universidad Nacional de Juliaca (PE)
- Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
- Corresponding author
- Peralta-Mamani, Mariela
- ORCID
- Venue
- Contemporary Educational Technology
- Publisher
- Bastas Publications
- Published
- 2026-02-04
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- ep623
- ISSN
- 1309-517X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7127616299
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8
- FWCI
- 14.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Contemporary Educational Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (88887)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- AI-generated feedback, ChatGPT, human feedback, student perceptions, higher education, university students, hybrid feedback, emotional support, personalized feedback, artificial intelligence in education
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
