Under blind conditions, students rated GenAI feedback more positively than tutor-generated feedback, with a statistically significant difference only on Genuineness favouring GenAI¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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.
q3 i2 Students rated GenAI feedback higher across all perception dimensions, but only the Genuineness difference was statistically significant (p = .036, r = .36). → Yilmaz 2026
Evidence¶
Yilmaz 2026¶
Yilmaz, M., Temur, H. B., Emmungil, L., Çelik, E., Gauthier, A., & Cukurova, M. (2026). Supporting self-regulated learning through generative AI feedback in online higher education: the importance of student perceptions of the source of feedback. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 23(16). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-026-00592-y
q3 · i2 · causal · r2
Mann–Whitney U comparison of post-intervention perception questionnaire scores (adapted from Nazaretsky et al.) between the GenAI (n = 20) and tutor (n = 21) groups; 41 of 46 students completed it. The study reports "a statistically significant difference was observed only for the Genuineness dimension" with r = .36.
"While GenAI-generated feedback received higher ratings across all perception dimensions, a statistically significant difference was observed only for the Genuineness dimension, favouring the GenAI group and yielding a moderate effect size (p = .036, r = .36)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The GenAI feedback group showed a statistically significant post-intervention improvement in the Task Strategies dimension of SRL compared with the tutor group — related
- Students in the generative AI-supported condition reported favorable perceptions of the instruction, with feedback for correcting mistakes rated highest — related
- Students rate LLM-generated response-level feedback favourably, with clarity and perceived accuracy highest and actionability and usefulness lowest — related
- Tutors on Ringle rated automated feedback significantly more negatively than learner feedback across six of seven perception dimensions — related
- Both instructor and AI-generated feedback were perceived positively, with instructor feedback rated higher descriptively on all four perception dimensions — reports the opposite
- Time Management showed a marginally significant post-intervention difference favouring GenAI feedback, while Goal Setting, Help Seeking and Self-Evaluation showed no significant differences — related
- Students perceived instructor feedback as significantly more useful than AI-generated feedback, with no significant differences on fairness, developmental value or encouragement — reports the opposite
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
genai-feedback-rated-higher-genuineness-blind |
title |
Under blind conditions, students rated GenAI feedback more positively than tutor-generated feedback, with a statistically significant difference only on Genuineness favouring GenAI |
description |
Under blind conditions, students rated GenAI feedback more positively than tutor-generated feedback, with a statistically significant difference only on Genuineness favouring GenAI |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-12 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — yilmaz-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.