When AI Feedback Was Still in Its Infancy: An Exploratory Comparison of Early AI Feedback Attempts on Preservice Physics Teachers’ Reflective Writing

Reflective writing is a core component of teacher education, especially during practical internships. However, providing high-quality feedback on reflections is resource-intensive. This study examines descriptively observable associations between an early dual-feedback approach combining basic (automated) and elaborate (human-generated) feedback and structural features of preservice physics teachers’ reflective writing, prior to the widespread adoption of generative AI in education. Using an exploratory, non-equivalent, non-concurrent cohort design, we analyzed participant-level aggregates of written reflections from a non-intervention cohort (N = 22) and an intervention cohort (N = 32), applying a validated reflection-supporting model to assess structural composition and discursive elements of reflective writing. In the intervention, basic feedback was generated by a previously validated BERT-based machine learning model focusing on structural reflection elements, while elaborate feedback addressed content-related and pedagogical depth. In this study, the automated model was employed as an analytic measurement instrument drawing on validation work demonstrating its transferability across comparable reflection contexts. Quantitative analyses did not reveal systematic longitudinal growth in indicators of reflective writing quality in either cohort. Across comparable measurement points, descriptively different structural reflection profiles were observed between cohorts, without permitting causal or developmental interpretations. Feedback acceptance was high overall, although structural AI feedback was perceived as less personalized and less useful. These findings highlight the descriptive value of early, non-generative AI-based approaches for scalable structural diagnostics of reflective writing, while underscoring the continued importance of human-generated, content-focused feedback. The study establishes an empirical baseline for evaluating contemporary generative AI–based feedback systems in teacher education.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Education Sciences
Published
2026-02-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16020301
Primary Topic
Reflective Practices in Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

When AI Feedback Was Still in Its Infancy: An Exploratory Comparison of Early AI Feedback Attempts on Preservice Physics Teachers’ Reflective Writing

Peter Wulff, Lukas Mientus, Andreas Borowski, Anna Nowak
Education Sciences
Reflective Practices in Education
article

When AI Feedback Was Still in Its Infancy: An Exploratory Comparison of Early AI Feedback Attempts on Preservice Physics Teachers’ Reflective Writing

Peter Wulff, Lukas Mientus, Andreas Borowski, Anna Nowak
article en

Abstract

Reflective writing is a core component of teacher education, especially during practical internships. However, providing high-quality feedback on reflections is resource-intensive. This study examines descriptively observable associations between an early dual-feedback approach combining basic (automated) and elaborate (human-generated) feedback and structural features of preservice physics teachers’ reflective writing, prior to the widespread adoption of generative AI in education. Using an exploratory, non-equivalent, non-concurrent cohort design, we analyzed participant-level aggregates of written reflections from a non-intervention cohort (N = 22) and an intervention cohort (N = 32), applying a validated reflection-supporting model to assess structural composition and discursive elements of reflective writing. In the intervention, basic feedback was generated by a previously validated BERT-based machine learning model focusing on structural reflection elements, while elaborate feedback addressed content-related and pedagogical depth. In this study, the automated model was employed as an analytic measurement instrument drawing on validation work demonstrating its transferability across comparable reflection contexts. Quantitative analyses did not reveal systematic longitudinal growth in indicators of reflective writing quality in either cohort. Across comparable measurement points, descriptively different structural reflection profiles were observed between cohorts, without permitting causal or developmental interpretations. Feedback acceptance was high overall, although structural AI feedback was perceived as less personalized and less useful. These findings highlight the descriptive value of early, non-generative AI-based approaches for scalable structural diagnostics of reflective writing, while underscoring the continued importance of human-generated, content-focused feedback. The study establishes an empirical baseline for evaluating contemporary generative AI–based feedback systems in teacher education.

Education SciencesVol. 16(2)
University of Potsdam (DE), University of Applied Sciences Potsdam (DE), Ludwigsburg University of Education (DE), Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg (DE)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 60%
Reflective Practices in Education
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.