CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 4Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningStudent Assessment and FeedbackOnline Learning and Analytics

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

LLM-based Multimodal Feedback Produces Equivalent Learning and Better Student Perceptions than Educator Feedback

Open access
Zhao, Chloe Qianhui, Cao, Jie, Lin, Jionghao, Koedinger, Kenneth R.·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2601.15280arXiv 2601.15280

Preprint — published as 10.1145/3785022.3785124

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Providing timely, targeted, and multimodal feedback helps students quickly correct errors, build deep understanding and stay motivated, yet making it at scale remains a challenge. This study introduces a real-time AI-facilitated multimodal feedback system that integrates structured textual explanations with dynamic multimedia resources, including the retrieved most relevant slide page references and streaming AI audio narration. In an online crowdsourcing experiment, we compared this system against fixed business-as-usual feedback by educators across three dimensions: (1) learning effectiveness, (2) learner engagement, (3) perceived feedback quality and value. Results showed that AI multimodal feedback achieved learning gains equivalent to original educator feedback while significantly outperforming it on perceived clarity, specificity, conciseness, motivation, satisfaction, and reducing cognitive load, with comparable correctness, trust, and acceptance. Process logs revealed distinct engagement patterns: for multiple-choice questions, educator feedback encouraged more submissions; for open-ended questions, AI-facilitated targeted suggestions lowered revision barriers and promoted iterative improvement. These findings highlight the potential of AI multimodal feedback to provide scalable, real-time, and context-aware support that both reduces instructor workload and enhances student experience.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2601.15280

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.

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

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?

  • Not all triggered behaviors are effective for learning; some are meaningless or harmful, e.g., gaming the system.

    “However, not all triggered behaviors are effective for learning (Zhao et al., 2026) , and sometimes there are some meaningless and even harmful behaviors, e.g., 'gaming the system' (Baker et al., 2008).”

    From Assessing the Impact and Underlying Pathways of Sequenced AI feedback on Student Learning (2026) · cites this paper as Zhao et al., 2026

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. [1][1] Ahmad Ari Aldino, Yi-Shan Tsai, Siddarth Gupte, Michael Henderson, Debarshi Nath, Dragan Gašević, and Guanliang Chen. 2025. Analytics of Learner-Centered Feedback: A Large-Scale Case Study in Higher Education. Computers & Education 237 (2025), 105360. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105360 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [2][2] Omar Alsaiari, Nilufar Baghaei, Hatim Lahza, Jason M. Lodge, Marie Boden, and Hassan Khosravi. 2025. Emotionally enriched AI-generated feedback: Supporting student well-being without compromising learning. Computers & Education 239 (2025), 105363. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105363 · DOI
  3. [4][4] Juliana Barros, Laura O. Moraes, Fernanda Oliveira, and Carla A. D. M. Delgado. 2025. Large Language Models Generating Feedback for Students of Introductory Programming Courses. In Artificial Intelligence in Education, Alexandra I. Cristea, Erin Walker, Yu Lu, Olga C. Santos, and Seiji Isotani (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 421–433.
  4. [5][5] Jerome S. Bruner, Jacqueline J. Goodnow, and George A. Austin. 1956. A Study of Thinking. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
  5. [6][6] Jie Cao, Chloe Qianhui Zhao, Xian Chen, Shuman Wang, Christian Schunn, Kenneth R. Koedinger, and Jionghao Lin. 2025. From First Draft to Final Insight: A Multi-agent Approach for Feedback Generation. In Artificial Intelligence in Education, Alexandra I. Cristea, Erin Walker, Yu Lu, Olga C. Santos, and Seiji Isotani (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 163–176.
  6. [7][7] David Carless, , and David Boud. 2018. The development of student feedback lit- eracy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43, 8 (Nov. 2018), 1315–1325. doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [8][8] Anderson Pinheiro Cavalcanti, Arthur Barbosa, Ruan Carvalho, Fred Freitas, Yi- Shan Tsai, Dragan Gašević, and Rafael Ferreira Mello. 2021. Automatic feedback in online learning environments: A systematic literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 2 (2021), 100027.
  8. [9][9] Eason Chen, Xinyi Tang, Aprille Xi, Chenyu Lin, Conrad Borchers, Shivang Gupta, Jionghao Lin, and Kenneth R. Koedinger. 2025. VTutor for High-Impact Tutoring at Scale: Managing Engagement and Real-Time Multi-Screen Monitoring with P2P Connections. In Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S '25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 320–324. doi:10.1145/3698205.3733948 · DOI
  9. [10][10] Hagit Gabbay and Anat Cohen. 2024. Combining LLM-Generated and Test-Based Feedback in a MOOC for Programming. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale. ACM, Atlanta GA USA, 177–187. doi:10.1145/ 3657604.3662040
  10. [11][11] Ge Gao, Amelia Leon, Andrea Jetten, Jasmine Turner, Husni Almoubayyed, Stephen Fancsali, and Emma Brunskill. 2025. Predicting Long-Term Student Out- comes from Short-Term EdTech Log Data. In Proceedings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK '25). Association for Comput- ing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 631–641. doi:10.1145/3706468.3706552 · DOI
  11. [12][12] Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Ji- awei Sun, MengWang, and HaofenWang. 2024. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2312.10997 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [13][13] Google Gemini Team. 2025. Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Rea- soning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06261 · arXiv
  13. [14][14] Jodi Goodman, Robert Wood, and Margaretha Hendrickx. 2004. Feedback Speci- ficity, Exploration, and Learning. The Journal of applied psychology 89 (April 2004), 248–62. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.248 · DOI · Paper page
  14. [15][15] John Hattie and Helen Timperley. 2007. The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research 77, 1 (March 2007), 81–112.
  15. [16][16] Yueqiao Jin, Kaixun Yang, Lixiang Yan, Vanessa Echeverria, Linxuan Zhao, Rior- dan Alfredo, Mikaela Milesi, Jie Xiang Fan, Xinyu Li, Dragan Gasevic, and Roberto Martinez-Maldonado. 2025. Chatting with a Learning Analytics Dashboard: The Role of Generative AI Literacy on Learner Interaction with Conventional and Scaffolding Chatbots. In Proceedings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK '25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 579–590. doi:10.1145/3706468.3706545 · DOI
  16. [17][17] Jelena Jovanovic, Negin Mirriahi, Dragan Gašević, Shane Dawson, and Abelardo Pardo. 2019. Predictive power of regularity of pre-class activities in a flipped classroom. Computers & Education 134 (2019), 156–168. doi:10.1016/j.compedu. 2019.02.011 · DOI
  17. [18][18] Lukas Jürgensmeier and Bernd Skiera. 2024. Generative AI for scalable feedback to multimodal exercises. International Journal of Research in Marketing 41, 3 (2024), 468–488. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2024.05.005 · DOI
  18. [19][19] Britnie Delinger Kane and Brooks Rosenquist. 2019. Relationships Between Instructional Coaches' Time Use and District- and School-Level Policies and Expectations. American Educational Research Journal 56, 5 (2019), 1718–1768. doi:10.3102/0002831219826580 · DOI
  19. [20][20] Enkelejda Kasneci, Kathrin Sessler, Stefan Küchemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan Günnemann, Eyke Hüllermeier, Stephan Krusche, Gitta Kutyniok, Tilman Michaeli, Claudia Nerdel, Jürgen Pfeffer, Oleksandra Poquet, Michael Sailer, Albrecht Schmidt, Tina Seidel, Matthias Stadler, JochenWeller, Jochen Kuhn, and Gjergji Kasneci. 2023. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large languagemodels for education. Learning and Individual Differences 103 (April 2023), 102274. doi:10.1016/j.lindif. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105360 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105363 https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 https://doi.org/10.1145/3698205.3733948 https://doi.org/10.1145/3657604.3662040 https://doi.org/10.1145/3657604.3662040 https://doi.org/10.1145/3706468.3706552 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.10997 https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06261 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.248 https://doi.org/10.1145/3706468.3706545 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2024.05.005 https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219826580 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 LLM-based Multimodal Feedback Produces Equivalent Learning and Better Student Perceptions than Educator Feedback LAK 2026, April 27-May 01, 2026, Bergen, Norway 2023.102274 · DOI
  20. [21][21] Hieke Keuning, Johan Jeuring, and BastiaanHeeren. 2018. A Systematic Literature Review of Automated Feedback Generation for Programming Exercises. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 19, 1 (Sept. 2018). doi:10.1145/3231711 · DOI · Paper page
  21. [22][22] Gyeonggeon Lee, Lehong Shi, Ehsan Latif, Yizhu Gao, Arne Bewersdorff, Matthew Nyaaba, Shuchen Guo, Zhengliang Liu, Gengchen Mai, Tianming Liu, and Xi- aoming Zhai. 2025. Multimodality of AI for Education: Toward Artificial General Intelligence. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 18 (2025), 666–683. doi:10.1109/TLT.2025.3574466 · DOI
  22. [24][24] Jionghao Lin, Eason Chen, Ashish Gurung, and Kenneth R. Koedinger. 2024. MuFIN: A Framework for Automating Multimodal Feedback Generation using Generative Artificial Intelligence. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale. ACM, Atlanta GA USA, 550–552.
  23. [25][25] Richard E. Mayer. 2020. Multimedia Learning (3 ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  24. [26][26] David J. Nicol and Debra Macfarlane-Dick. 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31, 2 (2006), 199–218. doi:10.1080/03075070600572090 · DOI · Paper page
  25. [29][29] Allan Paivio. 1990. Dual Coding Theory. InMental Representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press.
  26. [30][30] Jaeuk Park. 2024. Students' perceptions toward providing video-enhanced mul- timodal feedback on oral presentations. Computer Assisted Language Learning (May 2024), 1–27. doi:10.1080/09588221.2024.2344546 · DOI
  27. [31][31] Michael Prince. 2004. Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education 93, 3 (2004), 223–231.
  28. [32][32] Tracii Ryan, Michael Henderson, and Michael Phillips. 2019. Feedback modes matter: Comparing student perceptions of digital and non-digital feedback modes in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology 50, 3 (2019), 1507– 1523. doi:10.1111/bjet.12749 · DOI
  29. [33][33] Tracii Ryan, Michael Henderson, Kris Ryan, and Gregor Kennedy. 2021. Designing learner-centred text-based feedback: a rapid review and qualitative synthesis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 46, 6 (Aug. 2021), 894–912. doi:10. 1080/02602938.2020.1828819
  30. [34][34] Sylvio Rüdian, Julia Podelo, Jakub Kužílek, and Niels Pinkwart. 2025. Feedback on Feedback: Student's Perceptions for Feedback from Teachers and Few-Shot LLMs. In Proceedings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK '25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 82–92. doi:10.1145/3706468.3706479 · DOI
  31. [35][35] Kathrin Seßler, Arne Bewersdorff, Claudia Nerdel, and Enkelejda Kasneci. 2025. Towards Adaptive Feedback with AI: Comparing the Feedback Quality of LLMs and Teachers on Experimentation Protocols. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12842 · arXiv
  32. [36][36] Insub Shin, Su Bhin Hwang, Yun Joo Yoo, Sooan Bae, and Rae Yeong Kim. 2025. Comparing Student Preferences for AI-Generated and Peer-Generated Feedback in AI-driven Formative Peer Assessment. In Proceedings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK '25). Association for Comput- ing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 159–169. doi:10.1145/3706468.3706488 · DOI · Paper page
  33. [37][37] Valerie J. Shute. 2008. Focus on Formative Feedback. Review of Educational Research 78, 1 (2008), 153–189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795 · DOI · Paper page
  34. [38][38] Matthias Stadler, Maria Bannert, andMichael Sailer. 2024. Cognitive ease at a cost: LLMs reduce mental effort but compromise depth in student scientific inquiry. Computers in Human Behavior 160 (2024), 108386. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386 · DOI · Paper page
  35. [39][39] John Sweller. 2011. CHAPTER TWO - Cognitive Load Theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 55. Academic Press, 37–76.
  36. [40][40] Devika Venugopalan, Ziwen Yan, Conrad Borchers, Jionghao Lin, and Vin- cent Aleven. 2025. Combining Large Language Models with Tutoring Sys- tem Intelligence: A Case Study in Caregiver Homework Support. In Proceed- ings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK '25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 373–383. doi:10.1145/3706468.3706516 · DOI
  37. [41][41] Zehan Wang, Ke Lei, Chen Zhu, Jiawei Huang, Sashuai Zhou, Luping Liu, Xize Cheng, Shengpeng Ji, Zhenhui Ye, Tao Jin, and Zhou Zhao. 2025. T2A-Feedback: Improving Basic Capabilities of Text-to-Audio Generation via Fine-grained AI Feedback. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Wanxiang Che, Joyce Nabende, Ekaterina Shutova, and Mohammad Taher Pilehvar (Eds.). Association for Com- putational Linguistics, Vienna, Austria, 23535–23547. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl- long.1147 · DOI
  38. [42][42] Chloe Qianhui Zhao, Jie Cao, Eason Chen, Kenneth R. Koedinger, and Jionghao Lin. 2025. SlideItRight: Using AI to Find Relevant Slides and Provide Feedback for Open-Ended Questions. InArtificial Intelligence in Education, Alexandra I. Cristea, Erin Walker, Yu Lu, Olga C. Santos, and Seiji Isotani (Eds.). Vol. 15880. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 378–392. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3- 031-98459-4_27 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 https://doi.org/10.1145/3231711 https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2025.3574466 https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090 https://cdn.openai.com/gpt-5-system-card.pdf https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-realtime/ https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2344546 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12749 https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1828819 https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1828819 https://doi.org/10.1145/3706468.3706479 https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12842 https://doi.org/10.1145/3706468.3706488 https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386 https://doi.org/10.1145/3706468.3706516 https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1147 https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1147 https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-031-98459-4_27 https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-031-98459-4_27 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zhao, C. Q., Cao, J., Lin, J., & Koedinger, K. R.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
Pages
632-642
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2601.15280
arXiv
2601.15280
OpenAlex
W7155602945
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
35.74
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Carnegie Mellon University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
Keywords
AI-generated feedback, multimodal feedback, large language models, automated feedback, student perceptions, student engagement, cognitive load, student motivation, online learning, instructor workload, open-ended questions, multiple-choice questions

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