Revising the feedback prompt toward essay-grounded guidance was associated with more specific feedback in an observational before–after comparison¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-19 (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.
q2 i? A revised prompt predicted lower odds of low-specificity feedback (OR = 0.04, p = .003) and higher odds of score-5 specificity (OR = 2.97, p < .001), mainly reducing generic/repetitive complaints; this is an observational association across prompt versions, not a tested causal effect. → Andres Karjus 2026
Evidence¶
Andres Karjus 2026¶
Andres Karjus, Janika Leoste, Tiia Õun. (2026). Student Evaluation of Repeated AI Feedback Across a Semester of Writing. arXiv:2607.16115 [cs.CY]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.16115 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.16115
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Mixed-effects logistic models with student random intercepts and homework number, comparing prompt versions after a revision following HW4. Lower-specificity cases fell from 2% to less than 1% while score-5 feedback rose from 2% to 11%. The study is a retrospective observational analysis of one course's coursework, and the prompt version changed at one point in the semester, so the association cannot show that the revision caused the shift.
"therevisedpromptpredictedloweroddsoflower-specificityfeedback(OR=0.04,𝑝=.003)andhigheroddsofscore-5specificity(OR=2.97,𝑝<.001)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- In two secondary-school writing studies, peer reviewers' own performance predicted how helpful their feedback was but not how accurately it identified problems — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- In one study, feedback quality significantly predicts revised essay quality under teacher feedback but not under either GenAI feedback condition, though the conditions are not compared directly — related
- Feedback source does not significantly affect revised essay quality once initial draft quality is controlled — related
- K-12 students across five schools valued CyberScholar's detailed, specific, rubric-aligned feedback as helpful for identifying areas to revise — related
- A research-grounded prompt revision improved scores for 10 of 11 models, with gains of 6.6 to 16.2 percentage points — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
prompt-revision-increased-feedback-specificity |
title |
Revising the feedback prompt toward essay-grounded guidance was associated with more specific feedback in an observational before–after comparison |
description |
Revising the feedback prompt toward essay-grounded guidance was associated with more specific feedback in an observational before–after comparison |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
source_checked |
2026-10-19 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-11 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — andres-karjus-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.