Frame learner and automated feedback as complementary rather than conflicting¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

The article's second design consideration recommends that learner and automated feedback "should be framed as complementary rather than conflicting". Discrepancies between sources should be presented as opportunities for reflection rather than signals to prioritize one source, and systems can communicate which aspects learners assess better (e.g., engagement) and which automated systems capture more reliably (e.g., lesson structure).

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Systems must communicate which feedback aspects are better assessed by learners and which are more reliably captured by automated systems.

Constraints¶

• Tutors often perceived automated feedback negatively when it failed to capture lesson context.

Target Learners¶

• Online tutoring platform tutors navigating multiple feedback sources

Target Learning Goals¶

• Tutor interpretation and use of feedback for instructional improvement

Related Strategies¶

• Distinguish the purposes and scales of coexisting feedback sources in educational gig platforms
• Balance human and automated feedback to optimize writing skill development
• Use AI automated feedback tools to foster students' dispositions for partnering with teachers around feedback

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Yeon Su Park, Sieun Kim, Keighley Overbay, Seoyoung Kim, Sewook Wee, Daho Jung and Juho Kim. (2026). Supporting Tutors in the Gig Economy with Automated Feedback: A Case Study on Ringle. The 2026 Workshop on Pedagogical Evaluation of Automated Feedback (PEAF2026). https://osf.io/zsc3b/overview?view_only=dcf09d1a9fe64765b013df02af6bc382