Comparison of <scp>AI</scp>‐Generated and Instructor Feedback: No Significant Difference in Perceived Feedback Quality and Neither on Performance

ABSTRACT Background Feedback is an essential part of the educational process as it enriches students' learning experiences, provides information about their current performance, shows them what is lacking in achieving goals, and provides guidance on the strategies needed to achieve those goals. Teachers, especially in crowded classrooms, often have difficulty allocating enough time to provide feedback. ChatGPT has the potential to deliver feedback more efficiently and effectively. Objective This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of ChatGPT‐generated feedback in students' project proposal development process. Therefore, ChatGPT‐generated and instructor's feedback are compared in terms of perceived feedback quality and performance of students. Method In the study, a post‐test control group experimental design was used. A total of 48 students enrolled in a blended course at a state university participated in the study for 6 weeks. The study was conducted using a randomised post‐test‐only control group experimental design. Students were asked to prepare a project proposal and feedback was given on each task. While the control group received instructor feedback, the experimental group received ChatGPT feedback. Data were collected via the Formative Feedback Perceptions Scale, and the students' project proposals were graded based on the rubric to evaluate their performance. Results and Conclusion According to the Mann–Whitney U test analysis, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and the control group regarding both students' perceived feedback quality and performance. In conclusion, it can be argued that when guided by the appropriate prompts and asked to examine assignments of similar complexity to those in this study, ChatGPT can provide feedback of similar quality and equivalence to the feedback provided by instructors. In this way, it seems possible to improve students' learning as much as an instructor with individualised feedback by ChatGPT. Finally, it should be noted that these findings are within the limitations of the specific context of project proposal development, reliance on self‐reported data, and the experimental nature of the study; it is recommended to evaluate the effectiveness of AI‐generated feedback in different contexts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Published
2025-09-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70134
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Online Learning and Analytics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.39
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of AI‐Generated and Instructor Feedback: No Significant Difference in Perceived Feedback Quality and Neither on Performance

Perihan Tekeli, Şeyma Çağlar Özhan, Selay Arkün‐Kocadere
2 citations
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Online Learning and Analytics
3.39
article

Comparison of AI‐Generated and Instructor Feedback: No Significant Difference in Perceived Feedback Quality and Neither on Performance

Perihan Tekeli, Şeyma Çağlar Özhan, Selay Arkün‐Kocadere
article en
2 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Feedback is an essential part of the educational process as it enriches students' learning experiences, provides information about their current performance, shows them what is lacking in achieving goals, and provides guidance on the strategies needed to achieve those goals. Teachers, especially in crowded classrooms, often have difficulty allocating enough time to provide feedback. ChatGPT has the potential to deliver feedback more efficiently and effectively. Objective This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of ChatGPT‐generated feedback in students' project proposal development process. Therefore, ChatGPT‐generated and instructor's feedback are compared in terms of perceived feedback quality and performance of students. Method In the study, a post‐test control group experimental design was used. A total of 48 students enrolled in a blended course at a state university participated in the study for 6 weeks. The study was conducted using a randomised post‐test‐only control group experimental design. Students were asked to prepare a project proposal and feedback was given on each task. While the control group received instructor feedback, the experimental group received ChatGPT feedback. Data were collected via the Formative Feedback Perceptions Scale, and the students' project proposals were graded based on the rubric to evaluate their performance. Results and Conclusion According to the Mann–Whitney U test analysis, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and the control group regarding both students' perceived feedback quality and performance. In conclusion, it can be argued that when guided by the appropriate prompts and asked to examine assignments of similar complexity to those in this study, ChatGPT can provide feedback of similar quality and equivalence to the feedback provided by instructors. In this way, it seems possible to improve students' learning as much as an instructor with individualised feedback by ChatGPT. Finally, it should be noted that these findings are within the limitations of the specific context of project proposal development, reliance on self‐reported data, and the experimental nature of the study; it is recommended to evaluate the effectiveness of AI‐generated feedback in different contexts.

Journal of Computer Assisted LearningVol. 41(5)
Institute of Information Technologies (BG), Hacettepe University (TR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Online Learning and Analytics
3.39
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.