Who Should Grade My Work? Student Perspectives on Transparent AI-Assisted Writing Assessment in Higher Education
A Saudi university study finds students value ChatGPT writing feedback but treat human instructors as the final grading authority.
Thirteen male undergraduate computing students at a Saudi public university completed handwritten writing tasks that were scored by ChatGPT using a rubric-based prompt, then reflected after being told the score and feedback were AI-generated. Inductive thematic analysis identified four themes: perceived feedback usefulness, awareness of AI's contextual and pedagogical limitations, conditional trust, and reflection on the instructor's institutional role. Participants accepted GenAI feedback for surface-level revision but consistently positioned human instructors as the authority over grading decisions, distinguishing feedback utility from evaluative authority.
- Qualitative study with 13 computing undergraduates; ChatGPT scored scanned handwritten essays.
- Four themes: feedback usefulness, AI limitations, conditional trust, instructor's institutional role.
- Students separate feedback utility from evaluative authority when judging AI grading.
- Vendors
- OpenAI
- Products
- ChatGPT
- Countries
- Saudi Arabia
- AI models
- ChatGPT
From the original article
1 min read at arxiv.orgThe integration of GenAI tools into higher education assessment raises important questions about how students understand, interpret, and respond to AI-mediated evaluation.
By Rayed AlGhamdi · arxiv.org
A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.