Reduced engagement with GenAI feedback functionalities was attributed to a mismatch between GenAI outputs and student expectations¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer?·q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2028: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
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? Post hoc interviews revealed that reduced engagement with the GenAI functionalities was due to a mismatch between the GenAI outputs and student expectations. → Jin 2025
Evidence¶
Jin 2025¶
Jin, F. J.-Y., Maheshi, B., Lai, W., Li, Y., Gasevic, D., Chen, G., Charwat, N., Chan, P. W. K., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Gašević, D., & Tsai, Y.-S. (2025). Students' Perceptions of Generative AI-Powered Learning Analytics in the Feedback Process: A Feedback Literacy Perspective. Journal of Learning Analytics, 12(1), 152-168. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2025.8609
q2 · i? · qualitative · r?
Post hoc interviews, the third of the study's three data-collection activities with 18 students, were analysed thematically using feedback literacy theory. Interviews "revealed that reduced engagement was due to a mismatch between the GenAI outputs and student expectations".
"Post hoc interviews revealed that reduced engagement was due to a mismatch between the GenAI outputs and student expectations."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Motivation — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Students rated the flipped-learning component highest and the GenAI module lower, with GenAI rated stronger for ideation than for time saving or direct output use — related
- Qualitative themes: efficiency and peer influence drive AI use, while confidence and rule ambiguity shape students' perceptions of dependence — related
- Students showed only modest engagement with GenAI functionalities during in-semester use of the feedback tool — related
- Students remained cautious about relying on GenAI throughout the creative process, citing imperfect outputs and perceived loss of ownership — related
- Student experiences with GenAI in design thinking fall into four themes: perceived benefits, ethical concerns, hesitance and acceptance, and critical validation — related
- Student reflections revealed tensions between efficiency and academic integrity, and uncertainty about institutional expectations of GenAI use — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
mismatch-genai-outputs-student-expectations-reduced-engagement |
title |
Reduced engagement with GenAI feedback functionalities was attributed to a mismatch between GenAI outputs and student expectations |
description |
Reduced engagement with GenAI feedback functionalities was attributed to a mismatch between GenAI outputs and student expectations |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
recheck_by |
2028 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-11 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — jin-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.