Human and AI-generated feedback in higher education: A systematic review of effectiveness and student perceptions

Candy Haydee Guardia-Paniura; Timoteo Cueva-Luza; Favio Mauricio Cruz-Carpio; Raúl Reynaldo Ito-Díaz; David Victor Apaza-Paco; Nilda Rosas-Rojas; Benedicta Mamani-Mamani; Ángel Terrero-Pérez; Renato Yassutaka Faria Yaedú; Mariela Peralta-Mamani

doi:10.30935/cedtech/17863

Candy Haydee Guardia-Paniura ¹, Timoteo Cueva-Luza ², Favio Mauricio Cruz-Carpio ³, Raúl Reynaldo Ito-Díaz ⁴, David Victor Apaza-Paco ⁵, Nilda Rosas-Rojas ⁶, Benedicta Mamani-Mamani ⁴, Ángel Terrero-Pérez ⁷, Renato Yassutaka Faria Yaedú ⁷, Mariela Peralta-Mamani ⁷ ⁸ ^*

More Detail

CONT ED TECHNOLOGY, Volume 18, Issue 1, Article No: ep623

https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/17863

Submitted: 17 December 2024, Published Online: 04 February 2026

OPEN ACCESS 45 Views 25 Downloads

Download Full Text (PDF)

Abstract

This study aims to compare the feedback provided by human professors and ChatGPT on university students’ work and to report on students’ perceptions of both types of feedback. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Databases research included Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore, with additional gray literature sources, until October 2024. Inclusion criteria were cross-sectional studies evaluating university students’ work, comparing feedback from ChatGPT with human professors. Data extraction was performed using a standardized form, and risk of bias was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. A narrative synthesis of the results was made. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024566691. This review included 8 studies with 461 students. ChatGPT feedback was detailed and rapid, while human feedback was valued for its personalization and emotional support. Students appreciated the detailed and immediate nature of ChatGPT feedback but noted its lack of emotional nuance and context-specific guidance. Human feedback was preferred for addressing individual learning needs and providing affective support. A combination of both types of feedback to maximize benefits. ChatGPT can assist human teachers by providing detailed and timely feedback to university students. However, human supervision is essential to ensure feedback is nuanced and contextually appropriate. A hybrid approach can optimize the learning experience in higher education. Further research is necessary to explore AI applications in educational settings and understand their impact on learning outcomes.

Keywords: higher education, ChatGPT, feedback, systematic review

References

Al-Bashir, M., Kabir, M., & Rahman, I. (2016). The value and effectiveness of feedback in improving students’ learning and professionalizing teaching in higher education. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(16), 38-41.
AlGhamdi, R. (2024). Exploring the impact of ChatGPT-generated feedback on technical writing skills of computing students: A blinded study. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 18901-18929. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12594-2
Bauer, E., Greisel, M., Kuznetsov, I., Berndt, M., Kollar, I., Dresel, M., Fischer, M. R., & Fischer, F. (2023). Using natural language processing to support peer-feedback in the age of artificial intelligence: A cross-disciplinary framework and a research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(5), 1222-1245. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13336
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
Cowling, M., Crawford, J., Allen, K. A., & Wehmeyer, M. (2023). Using leadership to leverage ChatGPT and artificial intelligence for undergraduate and postgraduate research supervision. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 89-103. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8598
Dai, W., Lin, J., Jin, H., Li, T., Tsai, Y. S., Gašević, D., & Chen, G. (2023a). Can large language models provide feedback to students? A case study on ChatGPT. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 323-325). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT58122.2023.00100
Dai, Y., Lai, S., Lim, C. P., & Liu, A. (2023b). ChatGPT and its impact on research supervision: Insights from Australian postgraduate research students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 74-88. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8843
ElSayary, A. (2023). An investigation of teachers’ perceptions of using ChatGPT as a supporting tool for teaching and learning in the digital era. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(3), 931-945. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12926
Escalante, J., Pack, A., & Barrett, A. (2023). AI-generated feedback on writing: Insights into efficacy and ENL student preference. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2
Guo, K., & Wang, D. (2023). To resist it or to embrace it? Examining ChatGPT’s potential to support teacher feedback in EFL writing. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 8435-8463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0
Haindl, P., & Weinberger, G. (2024). Students’ experiences of using ChatGPT in an undergraduate programming course. IEEE Access, 12, 43519-43529. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3380909
Hammoda, B. (2024). ChatGPT for founding teams: An entrepreneurial pedagogical innovation. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(1), 154-173. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.530
Ho, W., & Lee, D. (2023). Enhancing engineering education in the Roblox metaverse: Utilizing ChatGPT for game development for electrical machine course. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering & Information Technology, 13(3), 1052-1058. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.13.3.18458
Ivanovic, I. (2023). Can AI-assisted essay assessment support teachers? A cross-sectional mixed-methods research conducted at the University of Montenegro. Annales-Analiza Istrske in Mediteranske Studije-Series Historia et Sociologia, 33(3), 571-590.
Jukiewicz, M. (2024). The future of grading programming assignments in education: The role of ChatGPT in automating the assessment and feedback process. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52, Article 101522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101522
Lu, Q., Yao, Y., Xiao, L., Yuan, M., Wang, J., & Zhu, X. (2024). Can ChatGPT effectively complement teacher assessment of undergraduate students’ academic writing? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(5), 616-633. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2301722
Messer, M., Brown, N. C., Kölling, M., & Shi, M. (2024). Automated grading and feedback tools for programming education: A systematic review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 1(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3636515
Moola, S., Munn, Z., Tufanaru, C., Aromataris, E., Sears, K., Sfetcu, R., Currie, M., Qureshi, R., Mattis, P., Lisy, K., & Mu, P.-F. (2020). Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In E. Aromataris, & Z. Munn (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI.
Muniandy, J., & Selvanathan, M. (2024). ChatGPT, a partnering tool to improve ESL learners’ speaking skills: Case study in a public university, Malaysia. Teaching Public Administration, 43(1), 4-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/01447394241230152
Ngo, T. T. A. (2023). The perception by university students of the use of ChatGPT in education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 18(17), 4-19. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i17.39019
Ossa, C., & Willatt, C. (2023). Providing academic writing feedback assisted by generative artificial intelligence in initial teacher education contexts. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 16(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.32457/ejep.v16i2.2412
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hrobjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Tong, S., Jia, N., Luo, X., & Fang, Z. (2021). The Janus face of artificial intelligence feedback: Deployment versus disclosure effects on employee performance. Strategic Management Journal, 42(9), 162-171. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3322
Tossell, C. C., Tenhundfeld, N. L., Momen, A., Cooley, K., & de Visser, E. J. (2024). Student perceptions of ChatGPT use in a college essay assignment: Implications for learning, grading, and trust in artificial intelligence. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17, 1069-1081. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2024.3355015
Wang, L., Chen, X., Wang, C., Xu, L., Shadiev, R., & Li, Y. (2024). ChatGPT’s capabilities in providing feedback on undergraduate students’ argumentation: A case study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 51, Article 101440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101440
Xiao, Y., & Zhi, Y. (2023). An exploratory study of EFL learners’ use of ChatGPT for language learning tasks: Experience and perceptions. Languages, 8(3), Article 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030212
Xu, X., Wang, X., Zhang, Y., & Zheng, R. (2024). Applying ChatGPT to tackle the side effects of personal learning environments from learner and learning perspective: An interview of experts in higher education. PLoS ONE, 19(1), Article e0295646. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295646
Yan, D. (2024). Feedback seeking abilities of L2 writers using ChatGPT: A mixed method multiple case study. Kybernetes, 54(7), 3757-3781. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2023-1933
Yang, W., Lee, H., Wu, R., Zhang, R., & Pan, Y. (2023). Using an artificial-intelligence-generated program for positive efficiency in filmmaking education: Insights from experts and students. Electronics, 12(23), Article 4813. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12234813
Zhai, X., Chu, X., Wang, M., Tsai, C. C., Liang, J. C., & Spector, J. M. (2024). A systematic review of stimulated recall (SR) in educational research from 2012 to 2022. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article 489.

Citation

Guardia-Paniura, C. H., Cueva-Luza, T., Cruz-Carpio, F. M., Ito-Díaz, R. R., Apaza-Paco, D. V., Rosas-Rojas, N., Mamani-Mamani, B., Terrero-Pérez, Á., Yaedú, R. Y. F., & Peralta-Mamani, M. (2026). Human and AI-generated feedback in higher education: A systematic review of effectiveness and student perceptions. Contemporary Educational Technology, 18(1), ep623. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/17863

Guardia-Paniura, C. H., Cueva-Luza, T., Cruz-Carpio, F. M., Ito-Díaz, R. R., Apaza-Paco, D. V., Rosas-Rojas, N., . . . Peralta-Mamani, M. (2026). Human and AI-generated feedback in higher education: A systematic review of effectiveness and student perceptions. Contemporary Educational Technology, 18(1), ep623. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/17863

Guardia-Paniura CH, Cueva-Luza T, Cruz-Carpio FM, et al. Human and AI-generated feedback in higher education: A systematic review of effectiveness and student perceptions. CONT ED TECHNOLOGY. 2026;18(1), ep623. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/17863

Guardia-Paniura, Candy Haydee, Timoteo Cueva-Luza, Favio Mauricio Cruz-Carpio, Raúl Reynaldo Ito-Díaz, David Victor Apaza-Paco, Nilda Rosas-Rojas, Benedicta Mamani-Mamani, Ángel Terrero-Pérez, Renato Yassutaka Faria Yaedú, and Mariela Peralta-Mamani. "Human and AI-generated feedback in higher education: A systematic review of effectiveness and student perceptions". Contemporary Educational Technology 2026 18 no. 1 (2026): ep623. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/17863

Guardia-Paniura, Candy Haydee et al. "Human and AI-generated feedback in higher education: A systematic review of effectiveness and student perceptions". Contemporary Educational Technology, vol. 18, no. 1, 2026, ep623. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/17863

Guardia-Paniura CH, Cueva-Luza T, Cruz-Carpio FM, Ito-Díaz RR, Apaza-Paco DV, Rosas-Rojas N, et al. Human and AI-generated feedback in higher education: A systematic review of effectiveness and student perceptions. CONT ED TECHNOLOGY. 2026;18(1):ep623. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/17863