Dental Students’ Learning Experience: Artificial Intelligence vs Human Feedback on Assignments

• Published in: International dental journal Vol. 75; no. 1; pp. 100 - 108
• Main Authors: Jayawardena, Chantha K., Gunathilake, Yuvika, Ihalagedara, Dhammika
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Inc 01.02.2025; Elsevier
• Subjects: Artificial Intelligence; Artificial intelligence (AI); Dentistry; Education, Dental - methods; Educational assessment; Educational Measurement; Feedback; Female; Formative Feedback; Humans; Learning; Male; Student engagement; Student feedback; Students, Dental - psychology; Succinct Rapid Communication; Tutorial assignment; Tutors; Student feedback; Tutors; Artificial intelligence (AI); Tutorial assignment; Educational assessment; Student engagement
• ISSN: 0020-6539; 1875-595X; 1875-595X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2024.12.022

This study evaluated the effectiveness of an AI-based tool (ChatGPT-4) (AIT) vs a human tutor (HT) in providing feedback on dental students’ assignments. A total of 194 answers to two histology questions were assessed by both tutors using the same rubric. Students compared feedback from both tutors and evaluated its accuracy against a standard rubric. Students’ perceptions were collected on five dimensions of feedback quality. A subject expert also evaluated feedback provided by the two tutors for 40 randomly selected answers. No significant differences were found in total scores between HT and AIT for one question, but a significant difference was noted for Question 2 and overall scores. Students’ perceptions showed no differences regarding understanding mistakes, promoting critical thinking, feedback comprehension, or relevance. However, students felt more comfortable with HT feedback (X2 = 9.01, P < .05). In contrast, expert evaluation highlighted that AIT scored higher in identifying mistakes, with significant differences in clarity (W = 40.5, P < .001) and suggestions for improvement (W = 96.5, P < .001). AIT demonstrates significant potential to complement HT by providing detailed feedback in a shorter timeframe. While students did not perceive differences in feedback quality, expert analysis identified AIT as superior in clarity and suggestions for improvement.