谁该为我的作业评分？高等教育中透明AI辅助写作评估的学生视角

中文摘要 AI 辅助

生成式AI（GenAI）工具融入高等教育评估引发了重要问题：学生如何理解、解读并回应AI介导的评估。随着教师越来越多地探索用AI工具提供反馈，已有研究考察了GenAI生成的反馈是否能提升写作表现，以及学生对其有用性的感知；然而，相对较少人知晓，当学生明确获知反馈和分数由AI系统而非人类教师生成时，他们如何解读这类评估。本研究报告了在沙特某公立大学面向计算机专业学生的本科技术传播课程中开展的定性教学探究的发现。13名男性本科计算机专业学生完成了课堂手写写作任务；扫描后的提交内容由ChatGPT使用与任务目标一致的基于评分规则的提示进行评估。随后学生被明确告知分数和反馈由ChatGPT生成，并被邀请以书面形式反思此次评估。对这些反思的归纳主题分析确定了四个主题：反馈的感知有用性；对AI在情境和教学层面局限性的认知；有条件的信任，区分反馈实用性与评估权威性；以及对人类教师的机构和教学角色的反思。参与者认可GenAI反馈对表层修订有用，但始终将人类教师定位为评分决策的适当权威。本研究将此确定为反馈实用性与评估权威性之间的区别，学生将这两种判断视为分析上独立的，而非单一认可量表的对立两端。

英文摘要

The integration of GenAI tools into higher education assessment raises important questions about how students understand, interpret, and respond to AI-mediated evaluation. As instructors increasingly explore AI tools for providing feedback, prior research has examined whether GenAI-generated feedback improves writing performance and how students perceive its usefulness; comparatively little is known, however, about how students interpret such evaluation when they are explicitly informed that an AI system, rather than a human instructor, produced the feedback and the score. This study reports findings from a qualitative pedagogical inquiry conducted in an undergraduate technical communication course for computing students at a Saudi public university. Thirteen male undergraduate computing students completed an in-class handwritten writing task; the scanned submissions were evaluated by ChatGPT using a rubric-based prompt aligned with the task objectives. Students were then explicitly informed that ChatGPT had generated the score and feedback and were invited to reflect on the evaluation in writing. Inductive thematic analysis of these reflections identified four themes: perceived usefulness of feedback; awareness of AI's contextual and pedagogical limitations; conditional trust, distinguishing feedback utility from evaluative authority; and reflection on the institutional and pedagogical role of the human instructor. Participants accepted GenAI feedback as useful for surface-level revision but consistently positioned the human instructor as the appropriate authority over grading decisions. The study identifies this as a distinction between feedback utility and evaluative authority, two judgments that students treat as analytically separate rather than as opposite ends of a single approval scale...

发表机构

• King Abdulaziz University（阿卜杜勒阿齐兹国王大学）

机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。