AI, Expert or Peer? -- Examining the Impact of Perceived Feedback Source on Pre-Service Teachers Feedback Perception and Uptake
July 21, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Lucas Jasper Jacobsen, Ute Mertens, Thorben Jansen, Kira Elena Weber
arXiv ID
2507.16013
Category
cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction
Citations
1
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Feedback plays a central role in learning, yet pre-service teachers' engagement with feedback depends not only on its quality but also on their perception of the feedback content and source. Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to provide educational feedback; however, negative perceptions may limit their practical use, and little is known about how pre-service teachers' perceptions and behavioral responses differ by feedback source. This study investigates how the perceived source of feedback - LLM, expert, or peer - influences feedback perception and uptake, and whether recognition accuracy and feedback quality moderate these effects. In a randomized experiment with 273 pre-service teachers, participants received written feedback on a mathematics learning goal, identified its source, rated feedback perceptions across five dimensions (fairness, usefulness, acceptance, willingness to improve, positive and negative affect), and revised the learning goal according to the feedback (i.e. feedback uptake). Results revealed that LLM-generated feedback received the highest ratings in fairness and usefulness, leading to the highest uptake (52%). Recognition accuracy significantly moderated the effect of feedback source on perception, with particularly positive evaluations when LLM feedback was falsely ascribed to experts. Higher-quality feedback was consistently assigned to experts, indicating an expertise heuristic in source judgments. Regression analysis showed that only feedback quality significantly predicted feedback uptake. Findings highlight the need to address source-related biases and promote feedback and AI literacy in teacher education.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Human-Computer Interaction
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Identifying Stable Patterns over Time for Emotion Recognition from EEG
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Learning for Sensor-based Human Activity Recognition: Overview, Challenges and Opportunities
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted