Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42510316›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026

When Do Undergraduate Students Prefer AI? Insights into AI Scoring and Feedback.

Seyma N Yildirim-Erbasli, Munevver Ilgun Dibek, Mackenzie L Thomas, Nicolya Lesoway

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Seyma N Yildirim-ErbasliDepartment of Psychology, Concordia University of Edmonton, Edmonton, AB T5B 4E4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8010-9414
Munevver Ilgun DibekDepartment of Educational Sciences, TED University, Ankara 06420, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-7098-0118
Mackenzie L ThomasDepartment of Psychology, Concordia University of Edmonton, Edmonton, AB T5B 4E4, Canada.ORCID 0009-0004-8849-0477
Nicolya LesowayDepartment of Psychology, Concordia University of Edmonton, Edmonton, AB T5B 4E4, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligenceautomated essay scoringChatGPTfeedbackstudent preferences

Identifiers

PMID42510316
PMCPMC13405773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.