A pilot implementation of Studiosty’s AI enabled Writing Feedback + service - exploring students’ experiences, approaches to utilisation and outcomes

The emergence of AI (Artificial Intelligence) and GAI (Generative Artificial Intelligence) presents opportunities and risks for the provision of academic writing support. This paper reports an institution-wide pilot of Studiosity’s WF+ (Writing Feedback+) service a new AI-led formative feedback system. This study compares the experiences of four groups: non-Studiosity users, human-only feedback (WF – Writing Feedback), AI-only (WF+) and where students experienced both WF and WF+. Drawing on data including student satisfaction, utilisation and timing, institutional attainment and retention, the paper demonstrates how to evaluate an AI-led implementation. Where WF+ offers advancements in scale and speed, there is work needed to better understand the nature of students’ experiences. Overall satisfaction for AI remained high and comparable to human feedback and there where no major changes in students’ submission patterns. Students accessing either of Studiosity’s services attained improved grades and exhibited enhanced retention compared to non-users. The paper offers a replicable framework for practitioners tasked with implementing or evaluate AI-led solutions. Using the techniques in this paper, practitioners can utilise the techniques to track, develop and enhance their own implementations.

Authors

Publication Details

Published
2025-09-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/u8vy4_v2
Primary Topic
Online Learning and Analytics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A pilot implementation of Studiosty’s AI enabled Writing Feedback + service - exploring students’ experiences, approaches to utilisation and outcomes

David Pike
Online Learning and Analytics
article

A pilot implementation of Studiosty’s AI enabled Writing Feedback + service - exploring students’ experiences, approaches to utilisation and outcomes

David Pike
article en

Abstract

The emergence of AI (Artificial Intelligence) and GAI (Generative Artificial Intelligence) presents opportunities and risks for the provision of academic writing support. This paper reports an institution-wide pilot of Studiosity’s WF+ (Writing Feedback+) service a new AI-led formative feedback system. This study compares the experiences of four groups: non-Studiosity users, human-only feedback (WF – Writing Feedback), AI-only (WF+) and where students experienced both WF and WF+. Drawing on data including student satisfaction, utilisation and timing, institutional attainment and retention, the paper demonstrates how to evaluate an AI-led implementation. Where WF+ offers advancements in scale and speed, there is work needed to better understand the nature of students’ experiences. Overall satisfaction for AI remained high and comparable to human feedback and there where no major changes in students’ submission patterns. Students accessing either of Studiosity’s services attained improved grades and exhibited enhanced retention compared to non-users. The paper offers a replicable framework for practitioners tasked with implementing or evaluate AI-led solutions. Using the techniques in this paper, practitioners can utilise the techniques to track, develop and enhance their own implementations.

Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
Online Learning and Analytics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

A pilot implementation of Studiosty’s AI enabled Writing Feedback + service - exploring students’ experiences, approaches to utilisation and outcomes — David Pike · (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS