ArticleEcology and evolution2026
Evaluating Artificial Intelligence, Peer, and Instructor Feedback Across Scientific Communication Assignments in Undergraduate Biology.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a potential source of formative feedback for student writing. However, relatively little is known about how AI-generated feedback compares with instructor and peer feedback across different Writing-to-Learn (WTL) assignments implemented in authentic undergraduate biology classrooms. This exploratory study compared AI (specifically ChatGPT-5), peer, and instructor feedback across infographic and academic explanatory article assignments implemented in three undergraduate biology courses representing diverse student populations. Agreement among feedback sources was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), while student perceptions of feedback usefulness, trust, engagement, and effort were assessed using Likert-scale survey data. Agreement between AI and instructor feedback varied according to assignment modality, disciplinary context, and revision stage. AI demonstrated moderate agreement with instructor feedback during the draft stage, but agreement frequently diverged following student revision, particularly for higher-order rubric criteria such as content accuracy and disciplinary reasoning. Agreement was consistently stronger for academic explanatory articles than for infographics. Students perceived instructor feedback as more useful and trustworthy than either peer or AI feedback, whereas the effort required to apply feedback did not differ across feedback sources. AI feedback was generally perceived similarly to peer feedback. Collectively, these findings suggest that AI is best used as a formative, early-stage scaffold within WTL assignments rather than as a summative evaluation tool. When integrated into structured instructional workflows alongside instructor and peer feedback, large language models can support student revision while preserving the central role of instructor expertise in undergraduate biology 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.