Assessing AI feedback within PAIRR helped students develop AI literacy and writerly agency, with very few showing overconfidence in AI¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer?·q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? 25% of students skeptically evaluated ChatGPT outputs and 25% noted inaccuracies or stated they disagreed, while only 5.3% demonstrated overconfidence in AI feedback. → Sperber 2025
Evidence¶
Sperber 2025¶
Sperber, Lisa; MacArthur, Marit; Minnillo, Sophia; Stillman, Nicholas; Whithaus, Carl. (2025). Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR): A human-centered approach to formative assessment. Computers and Composition 76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102921
q2 · i? · qualitative · r?
Thematic coding of the stratified sub-sample's reflections; students also delineated a limited role for AI (25%), described ethical ways to use AI, and articulated rationales for revision decisions, which the authors read as emerging AI literacy and agency.
"Many students skeptically evaluated ChatGPT outputs (25%) and noted inaccuracies or stated that they disagreed (25%)"
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Digital Literacy — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Thematic coding of student reflections shows peers seen as understanding context and AI feedback seen as actionable, with one quarter of reflections expressing skepticism of AI — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- Students perceive LLM chatbots as useful for learning but requiring critical use, reporting hallucinations, overconfidence, and dependency risks — related
- GenAI feedback limitations require students to exercise evaluative judgement — related
- Post-interaction reflections reveal four preference themes: AI as formative learning aid, preference for human authority, conditional acceptance, and skepticism about educational impact — related
- Persistent challenges include feedback inaccuracy, learner overreliance, and limited transparency — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
assessing-ai-feedback-builds-ai-literacy-and-agency |
title |
Assessing AI feedback within PAIRR helped students develop AI literacy and writerly agency, with very few showing overconfidence in AI |
description |
Assessing AI feedback within PAIRR helped students develop AI literacy and writerly agency, with very few showing overconfidence in AI |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-12 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — sperber-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.