Providing academic writing feedback assisted by Generative Artificial Intelligence in initial teacher education contexts

Article Sidebar

PDF (Español (España)) Epub (Español (España))
Published: Dec 27, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32457/ejep.v16i2.2412
Keywords:
inteligencia artificial generativa, estudio de casos, retroalimentación descriptiva, escritura académica, formación inicial docente generative artificial intelligence, case study, descriptive feedback, academic writing, initial teacher education

Article Details

How to Cite
Ossa, C. ., & Willatt, C. (2023). Providing academic writing feedback assisted by Generative Artificial Intelligence in initial teacher education contexts. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 16(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.32457/ejep.v16i2.2412
Issue
Vol. 16 No. 2 (2023)
Section
Artículos
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This journal provides immediate free access to its content. The publication is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The rights of the works published in this journal are property of the author and they are free to distribute and disseminate the same sources as long as he correctly cites the font of publication, these acts are not for commercial purposes and no derivative works are generated.

Author Biography

Carlos Ossa, Facultad de Educación, Universidad Autónoma de Chile

 

 
Providing academic writing feedback assisted by Generative Artificial Intelligence in initial teacher education contexts

Main Article Content

Carlos Ossa
Facultad de Educación, Universidad Autónoma de Chile
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6862-8042
Carlos Willatt
Facultad de Educación, Universidad Autónoma de Chile
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3357-5073

Abstract

This paper presents the implementation of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) for providing descriptive feedback on 578 responses to pedagogical cases written by a cohort of students (n = 347) from seven initial teacher education programs at a Faculty of Education in Chile. To deliver feedback on these responses, a process called RECaP-GPT was developed, which incorporates human action and utilizes ChatGPT-4 as a teaching support tool. The feedback provided is based on pre-established criteria known to the students. The feedback generated by the GAI was validated and delivered to the students to enhance their evidence of learning throughout a semester of classes. The paper discusses the capacity of this tool to offer formative and extensive feedback on students' written work in a short period of time. Furthermore, it raises limitations observed in the implementation process that necessitate further research.

References

Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463-482 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00004-6

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box. Raising standards through classroom assessment. King’s College London.

Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 28, 150-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of theory of syntax. MIT Press.

Dai, W., Lin, J., Jin, F., Li, T., Tsai, Y., Gasevic, D., & Chen, G. (2023). Can large language models provide feedback to students? A case study on ChatGPT. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/hcgzj

Decreto 67 de 2018. Aprueba normas mínimas nacionales sobre evaluación, calificación y promoción y deroga los decretos exentos n° 511 de 1997, n° 112 de 1999 y n° 83 de 2001, todos del Ministerio de Educación. https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1127255

Deeva, G., Bogdanova, D., Serral, E., Snoeck, M., & De Weerdt, J. (2021). A review of automated feedback systems for learners: Classification framework, challenges and opportunities. Computers & Education, 162, 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104094

Doewes, A. & Pechenizkiy, M. (2021). On the limitations of human-computer agreement in automated essay scoring. En Proceedings of The 14th International Conference on Educational

Data Mining, 475-480.

https://educationaldatamining.org/EDM2021/virtual/static/pdf/EDM21_paper_243.pdf

Galindo-Domínguez, H., Delgado, N., Losada, D. & Etxabe, J. M. (2023). An analysis of the use of artificial intelligence in education in Spain: The in-service teacher’s perspective. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1902467

Gazquez Linares, J. J., Pérez Fuentes, M. & Suazo Galdames, I. (2023). Aprovechando el Potencial de la Inteligencia Artificial en la Educación: Equilibrando Beneficios y Riesgos. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 16(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.32457/ejep.v16i1.2205

Hare, W., & Portelli, J-P. (2003). What to do? Case studies for teacher educators. EdPhil Books.

Henderson, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., Dawson, P., Phillips, M., Molloy, E., & Mahoney, P. (2019). Conditions that enable effective feedback. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(7), 1401-1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1657807

Ke, Z., & Ng, V. (2019). Automated essay scoring: A survey of the state of the art. En Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 6300-6308. https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2019/0879.pdf

López, N. & Tedesco, J. (2002). Las condiciones de educabilidad de los niños y adolescentes en América Latina: documento para discusión. UNESCO IIEP.

Martínez Sánchez, A. (1999). El estudio de casos como técnica didáctica. Estudio de una experiencia en la enseñanza universitaria. Innovación Educativa, 9, 25-53.

Nedjat-Haiem, M. & Cooke, J. (2021). Student strategies when taking open-ended test questions. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1877905

Ossa, C. & Willatt, C. (2023). Retroalimentación efectiva basada en inteligencia artificial generativa. Criterios de evaluación para la escritura de casos pedagógicos. http://doi.org/10.32457/12728/102782023120

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.

Schön, D. (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. Teachers College Press.

Shepard, L. (2006). La evaluación en el aula. Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación.

Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189

Stobart, G. (2014). The expert learner. Open University Press.

Svanes, I. K. & Andersson-Bakken, E. (2023). Teachers’ use of open questions: investigating the various functions of open questions as a mediating tool in early literacy education. Education Inquiry, 14(2), 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2021.1985247

Torrance, H. & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment. Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Open University Press.

Tunstall, P. & Gipps, C. (1996). Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 389-404.

UNESCO (2021). Formadores de docentes en seis países de América Latina. Instituciones, prácticas y visiones. UNESCO/UDP.

UNESCO (2023). ChatGPT and artificial intelligence in higher education: quick start guide. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385146

Wiggins, G. (2012). Seven keys to effective feedback. Feedback for Learning, 70(1), 10-16.

Wiliam, D. (1999). Formative assessment in mathematics. Equals: Mathematics and Special Education Needs, 5(3) 8-11)

Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.

Wiliam. D (2012). Feedback: part of a system. Feedback for learning. 70(1), 30-34

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.