ArticleFEBS open bio2026
Evaluating GenAI-produced feedback on undergraduate bioscience essays against good higher education feedback practice.
Article in FEBS open bio, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 emergence of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has led to substantial interest in its potential to support student learning and assessment in higher education. In particular, GenAI's ability to provide immediate and iterative formative feedback on the quality of students' work has substantial potential to enhance student learning and attainment. However, for feedback to be impactful and useful, the quality and utility of feedback generated by GenAI needs to accurately reflect the quality of the work and align with principles for good feedback provision. This study evaluated the feedback that an undergraduate student might obtain from a single, unscaffolded interaction with a GenAI platform (ChatGPT4o), without tutor input, applied to 30 Year 1 Bioscience essays. Using a bespoke rubric for feedback quality alongside qualitative and quantitative analyses, the GenAI-generated feedback was evaluated for alignment to established hallmarks of good feedback practice. Overall, GenAI-authored feedback had useful elements but was limited in scope. While feedback tended to be accurate, specific to the essay, with a strong focus on content and substantial elements of feed-forward advice, critical guidance and motivational feedback were limited. Within the feedback test, neutral observations focused mostly on structure and use of figures. Positive feedback focused mainly on use of language, and areas for improvement mostly on structure, missing content, and citations/references. These findings suggest that GenAI may have some potential to provide instant, formative guidance to students, but its use may require substantial scaffolding by educators in order to be effective.
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.