将 GenAI 工具集成到高等教育评估中提出了重要问题：学生如何理解,、解释, 并对 AI 介导的评估做出反应。随着教师越来越多地探索用于提供反馈的 AI 工具,，先前的研究已经检验了 GenAI 生成的反馈是否可以提高写作成绩以及学生如何看待其有用性; 相对而言知之甚少,，但是, 当学生被明确告知 AI 系统, 而不是人类教师, 产生反馈和分数时，他们如何解释此类评估。本研究报告了在沙特公立大学计算机系学生的本科技术传播课程中进行的定性教学调查的结果。 13 名男性本科计算机学生完成了课堂手写写作任务; ChatGPT 使用与任务目标一致的基于标题的提示对扫描提交的内容进行了评估。然后明确告知学生 ChatGPT 已生成分数和反馈，并邀请他们以书面形式反思评估。对这些反思的归纳主题分析确定了四个主题:感知反馈的有用性;对人工智能的认识'的背景和教学局限性;有条件的信任,区分反馈效用与评估权威;以及对人类教师的制度和教学角色的反思。参与者接受 GenAI 反馈对于表面级别的修订有用，但始终将人类讲师定位为评分决策的适当权威。该研究将此视为反馈效用和评估权威,之间的区别，学生将这两种判断视为分析上独立的而不是单一认可量表的两端......
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的 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...
科目:人工智能(cs.AI)
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)