Feedback Generation through Artificial Intelligence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feedback is an essential part of the educational assessment that improves student learning. As education changes with the advancement of technology, educational assessment has also adapted to the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Despite the increasing use of online assessments during the last decade, a limited number of studies have discussed the feedback generation process as implemented through AI. To address this gap, we propose a conceptual paper to organize and discuss the application of AI in the feedback generation and delivery processes. Among different branches of AI, Natural Language Processing (NLP), Educational Data Mining (EDM), and Learning Analytics (LA) play the most critical roles in the feedback generation process. The process begins with analyzing students’ data from educational assessments to build a predictive machine learning model with additional features such as students’ interaction with course material using EDM methods to predict students’ learning outcomes. Written feedback can be generated from a model with NLP-based algorithms before being delivered, along with non-verbal feedback via a LA dashboard or a digital score report. Also, ethical recommendations for using AI for feedback generation are discussed. This paper contributes to understanding the feedback generation process to serve as a venue for the future development of digital feedback.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it