Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Jason M. Lodge

Publications and source records attributed to Jason M. Lodge.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2026

Making AI-Generated Feedback Matter: A Large-Scale Study of Feedback Workflows and Student Enactment

Feedback processes strongly influence student learning, yet their educational value depends on addressing two distinct challenges: providing high-quality, timely, and individualised feedback at scale, and supporting students to interpret, evaluate, and act on that feedback productively. Generative AI offers a credible means of addressing the provision challenge, but students' uptake of AI-generated feedback remains limited. We conducted a large-scale quasi-experimental sequential cohort study comparing three AI-mediated feedback workflows across 13,037 students and 51,296 student-authored resources. In Directed Feedback (n = 3,723), students received AI-generated feedback comments without structured support. In Self-Directed Feedback (n = 3,951), students could initiate optional AI-supported dialogue. In Enacted Feedback (n = 5,363), students were prompted to select feedback suggestions, evaluate their relevance, and engage in targeted AI-supported dialogue anchored to those selections. Enacted Feedback was associated with significantly higher uptake of AI-generated feedback, with an estimated probability of 26.2%, compared with 14.1% for Directed Feedback and 0.1% for Self-Directed Feedback. It was also associated with significantly higher self-assessment confidence and submitted-work quality than both comparison conditions. These findings suggest that the educational value of AI-generated feedback depends not only on the quality of feedback comments, but also on workflows that actively structure students' enactment of feedback literacy processes. The results have implications for the design of AI feedback systems that position learners as active participants in judgement, dialogue, and improvement rather than passive recipients of comments. Overall findings show that AI access alone is insufficient; purposeful workflow design is central to productive feedback use.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2025

Directive, Metacognitive or a Blend of Both? A Comparison of AI-Generated Feedback Types on Student Engagement, Confidence, and Outcomes

Feedback is one of the most powerful influences on student learning, with extensive research examining how best to implement it in educational settings. Increasingly, feedback is being generated by artificial intelligence (AI), offering scalable and adaptive responses. Two widely studied approaches are directive feedback, which gives explicit explanations and reduces cognitive load to speed up learning, and metacognitive feedback which prompts learners to reflect, track their progress, and develop self-regulated learning (SRL) skills. While both approaches have clear theoretical advantages, their comparative effects on engagement, confidence, and quality of work remain underexplored. This study presents a semester-long randomised controlled trial with 329 students in an introductory design and programming course using an adaptive educational platform. Participants were assigned to receive directive, metacognitive, or hybrid AI-generated feedback that blended elements of both directive and metacognitive feedback. Results showed that revision behaviour differed across feedback conditions, with Hybrid prompting the most revisions compared to Directive and Metacognitive. Confidence ratings were uniformly high, and resource quality outcomes were comparable across conditions. These findings highlight the promise of AI in delivering feedback that balances clarity with reflection. Hybrid approaches, in particular, show potential to combine actionable guidance for immediate improvement with opportunities for self-reflection and metacognitive growth.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2024

How critically can an AI think? A framework for evaluating the quality of thinking of generative artificial intelligence

Generative AI such as those with large language models have created opportunities for innovative assessment design practices. Due to recent technological developments, there is a need to know the limits and capabilities of generative AI in terms of simulating cognitive skills. Assessing student critical thinking skills has been a feature of assessment for time immemorial, but the demands of digital assessment create unique challenges for equity, academic integrity and assessment authorship. Educators need a framework for determining their assessments vulnerability to generative AI to inform assessment design practices. This paper presents a framework that explores the capabilities of the LLM ChatGPT4 application, which is the current industry benchmark. This paper presents the Mapping of questions, AI vulnerability testing, Grading, Evaluation (MAGE) framework to methodically critique their assessments within their own disciplinary contexts. This critique will provide specific and targeted indications of their questions vulnerabilities in terms of the critical thinking skills. This can go on to form the basis of assessment design for their tasks.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2020

Using voice note-taking to promote learners' conceptual understanding

Though recent technological advances have enabled note-taking through different modalities (e.g., keyboard, digital ink, voice), there is still a lack of understanding of the effect of the modality choice on learning. In this paper, we compared two note-taking input modalities -- keyboard and voice -- to study their effects on participants' learning. We conducted a study with 60 participants in which they were asked to take notes using voice or keyboard on two independent digital text passages while also making a judgment about their performance on an upcoming test. We built mixed-effects models to examine the effect of the note-taking modality on learners' text comprehension, the content of notes and their meta-comprehension judgement. Our findings suggest that taking notes using voice leads to a higher conceptual understanding of the text when compared to typing the notes. We also found that using voice also triggers generative processes that result in learners taking more elaborate and comprehensive notes. The findings of the study imply that note-taking tools designed for digital learning environments could incorporate voice as an input modality to promote effective note-taking and conceptual understanding of the text.

cs.HC↗