ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
When Do Undergraduate Students Prefer AI? Insights into AI Scoring and Feedback.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Telling Students to Evaluate Does Not Make It Happen: Task Stage, Offloading Tendency, and Error Detection in AI-Assisted Student Writing.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Enhancing Employee Innovation Through Dependence on AI: The Mediating Role of Cognitive Flexibility and Moderating Effect of Job Complexity.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into higher education assessment has prompted growing interest in how students perceive and prefer AI involvement in scoring and feedback. While prior research has largely focused on technical performance and accuracy, this study aims to fill a gap in the literature by examining students' preferences and perceptions regarding AI scoring and feedback, with particular attention to context, assignment stakes, and post-evaluation reflections. Ninety-three undergraduate students completed a survey consisting of Likert-type items, scenario-based questions, and an activity in which they generated AI-based scoring and feedback using ChatGPT. Results showed that students preferred structured, moderately detailed AI feedback, particularly for grammar and organization, but generally favoured human evaluation, especially for subjective tasks. While AI was seen as useful in lower-stakes contexts, concerns remained about its ability to assess more complex aspects of writing. Participants expressed a strong preference for hybrid approaches in which AI augments rather than replaces human judgment, along with a need for transparency and opportunities for human review. Collectively, these findings highlight that undergraduate students' preferences are highly context-sensitive and role-specific, underscoring the importance of student-centred implementation strategies of AI in higher education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.