Students rated AI-generated and instructor-created lecture slides as similar in quality in a real course¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · no dated study recorded · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? A Mann-Whitney U test found no evidence of a quality difference between AI- and human-made slides (median 5.0 for both). → anchor-quality-rating

Evidence¶

anchor-quality-rating¶

Juho Leinonen, Lisa Zhang, and Arto Hellas. 2026. AI-Generated Slides: Are They Good? Can Students Tell?. In Proceedings of Western Canada Conference on Computing Education 2026 (WCCCE 2026). ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13532 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.13532

q2 · i? · causal · r1

In-class survey in a Web Software Development course (88 enrolled, 51 at first lecture); students rated each segment's slides on a 7-point Likert scale, yielding 459 overall ratings; "the median for both was 5.0" and U = 25600, p = 0.84.

"We found that the quality of the AI- and human-made slides was similar: the median for both was 5.0. This is supported by the Mann-Whitney U test results (U = 25600, p = 0.84), which indicate we failed to find evidence that the slides were of different quality."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students cannot reliably distinguish AI-generated slides from human-created slides — related
• Students associate poor slide quality with AI as the source: perceived quality correlates negatively with AI-source guesses — related
• Students perceived instructor feedback as significantly more useful than AI-generated feedback, with no significant differences on fairness, developmental value or encouragement — related