Most participants rejected the chatbot's guidance when revising fabricated peer feedback¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? More than 60% of participants rejected guidance when revising the four feedback types on a thesis statement, and more than 50% rejected it for arguments and counterarguments. → Michael Pin-Chuan Lin 2025

Evidence¶

Michael Pin-Chuan Lin 2025¶

Michael Pin-Chuan Lin, Daniel H. Chang, Philip H. Winne. (2025). A proposed methodology for investigating student-chatbot interaction patterns in giving peer feedback. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10408-3

q2 · i? · design · r2

Second-session analysis of revision choices in the 23-participant study (Table 6); many who rejected guidance proposed incorrect revisions, e.g. 18 of 23 misjudged posing questions for improvement. Percentages are descriptive; no test statistic is printed.

"More than 60% of the participants rejected guidance from the chatbot when revising four types of feedback on a thesis statement."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students were often overconfident about their understanding of how to give peer feedback after chatbot instruction — related
• Students bound their reliance on AI feedback and advocate a hybrid model assigning AI broad language concerns and instructors individualized relational guidance — related