AI Ed Wiki logoAI Ed Wiki
Use with AI

📄 Research Article

Students' Perceptions of Generative AI-Powered Learning Analytics in the Feedback Process: A Feedback Literacy Perspective

● high · 2026-08-15 · feedback, learning-analytics, ai-feedback-quality, formative-assessment, self-regulated-learning, ai-literacy, higher-ed, student-experience

Summary

Jin, Maheshi, Lai, Li, Gasevic, Chen, Charwat, Chan, Martinez-Maldonado, Gašević & Tsai (2025) examine how generative AI (GenAI) can support students' engagement with feedback through a feedback literacy lens. They piloted PolyFeed, a student-facing learning analytics feedback tool whose two GenAI features (both running ChatGPT 3.5) were: a ChatGPT explanation function that reformats or explains specific educator feedback in simpler, bullet-pointed language (capped at two attempts per item), and a GenAI-powered dashboard visualizing common strengths and weaknesses across assessments and units, derived from students' own feedback annotations and inductive thematic coding. Data came from 18 higher-education students across information technology, education, business/economics, and engineering, spanning three phases: introductory lab sessions, in-semester trace-data use, and post hoc interviews.

The central finding is a discrepancy between initial perceptions and actual usage. During the introductory lab sessions, students reacted overwhelmingly positively — all 18 reacted positively to ChatGPT explanations and 16 to the visualizations, seeing them as aids to sense-making, reflection, and acting on feedback. Yet in-semester trace data showed only modest engagement: just half used the ChatGPT explanation function (mean rating 3.23/4), and visualization access ranged 50–67% per graph. Post hoc interviews revealed three drivers of the drop: a mismatch between students' expectations and GenAI outputs, a lack of relevance across varied disciplines, and a sense that the features were redundant when educator feedback was already clear. The authors argue GenAI can help close the feedback loop and shift students from passive recipients to active participants, but call for adaptive, discipline-specific, explainable designs that set realistic expectations and give learners control over AI interactions.

Key Findings

  • Strong initial enthusiasm that did not fully translate into use. In lab sessions, 100% of students reacted positively to ChatGPT explanations and 89% to GenAI visualizations; half said explanations helped them make sense of vague feedback, and 14 valued visualizations for using feedback and reflecting. Yet in-semester use was modest (50% used explanations; visualization access 50–67%), and positive reports declined in post hoc interviews.
  • Feedback literacy mapping. Students connected the features to several feedback literacy components (from Carless & Boud and Molloy et al.): making sense of feedback, seeking feedback information, using feedback information (reflection, monitoring, action planning), and — notably — managing emotions, as visualizations and explanations reduced the overwhelm of dense, "jumbled" feedback and offered a low-stakes intermediary before approaching tutors (especially valued where cultural norms made direct tutor contact uncomfortable).
  • Redundancy and relevance limits engagement. Some students found the functions unnecessary when feedback was already clear ("not needing to use it"), and criticized explanations as repetitive or unable to handle subject-specific content such as mathematics. These findings echo broader questions about AI feedback quality and when AI adds value versus when it duplicates what educators already provide.
  • Trust and expectation-setting. Students raised concerns about the reliability of the older ChatGPT version and about privacy (whether their details were sent to ChatGPT). The authors recommend transparency about GenAI capabilities, explainable-AI principles, and greater user control over outputs to build trust and foster sustained self-regulated learning.

Implications

  • Design for relevance and discipline-specificity. Generic GenAI feedback that fails on subject-specific content (e.g., mathematics) or simply restates educator feedback risks being abandoned; adaptive and discipline-tailored GenAI is a clear design priority.
  • Manage expectations to sustain engagement. The gap between initial hype and real-world use suggests institutions should communicate clearly what GenAI can and cannot do, reducing mismatched expectations that undermine trust and usage.
  • Empower learners as active agents. By enabling students to seek clarification, reflect, and act on feedback independently, GenAI within LA tools can strengthen feedback loops, promote formative engagement, and build feedback literacy — provided learners retain control over the interaction.
  • Measure feedback literacy via trace data. The authors propose novel trace-data-based measures of feedback literacy to move beyond self-report, complementing Student Experience survey work.

Connected Concepts

Connected Articles

Citation

Jin, F. J.-Y., Maheshi, B., Lai, W., Li, Y., Gasevic, D., Chen, G., Charwat, N., Chan, P. W. K., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Gašević, D., & Tsai, Y.-S. (2025). Students' Perceptions of Generative AI-Powered Learning Analytics in the Feedback Process: A Feedback Literacy Perspective. Journal of Learning Analytics, 12(1), 152–168.