ENL students were near-evenly split in preference between AI-generated and human tutor feedback¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across six weeks, weekly survey respondents split almost evenly between preferring human tutor feedback and AI-generated feedback, with AI slightly ahead on the forced-choice item. → Escalante 2023

Evidence¶

Escalante 2023¶

Escalante, J., Pack, A., & Barrett, A. (2023). AI-generated feedback on writing: insights into efficacy and ENL student preference. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20:57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Study 2 weekly Qualtrics survey with 43 ENL students receiving both feedback types; forced-choice item 9 averaged near the 1.5 even-split point (grand mean 1.53). "The six-week average of the number of students that preferred feedback from human tutors was 18" vs 19.667 for AI.

"The six-week average of the number of students that preferred feedback from human tutors was 18, which was slightly lower than the average of those that preferred AI-generated feedback (19.667)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• AI-generated (GPT-4) feedback produced no greater linguistic progress than human tutor feedback among ENL students over six weeks — related
• Feedback source (human tutor vs GPT-4) had no significant effect on ENL students' posttest writing scores — related
• Students who preferred human tutor feedback cited face-to-face interaction, engagement, follow-up questions, and speaking practice — related
• Students who preferred AI feedback cited clarity, understandability, consistency, specificity, and 24/7 availability — related