AICoFe: Implementation and Deployment of an AI-Based Collaborative Feedback System for Higher Education

Feedback processes strongly influence student learning, yet their educational value depends on addressing two distinct challenges: providing high-quality, timely, and individualised feedback at scale, and supporting students to interpret, evaluate, and act on that feedback productively. Generative AI offers a credible means of addressing the provision challenge, but students' uptake of AI-generated feedback remains limited. We conducted a large-scale quasi-experimental sequential cohort study comparing three AI-mediated feedback workflows across 13,037 students and 51,296 student-authored resources. In Directed Feedback (n = 3,723), students received AI-generated feedback comments without structured support. In Self-Directed Feedback (n = 3,951), students could initiate optional AI-supported dialogue. In Enacted Feedback (n = 5,363), students were prompted to select feedback suggestions, evaluate their relevance, and engage in targeted AI-supported dialogue anchored to those selections. Enacted Feedback was associated with significantly higher uptake of AI-generated feedback, with an estimated probability of 26.2%, compared with 14.1% for Directed Feedback and 0.1% for Self-Directed Feedback. It was also associated with significantly higher self-assessment confidence and submitted-work quality than both comparison conditions. These findings suggest that the educational value of AI-generated feedback depends not only on the quality of feedback comments, but also on workflows that actively structure students' enactment of feedback literacy processes. The results have implications for the design of AI feedback systems that position learners as active participants in judgement, dialogue, and improvement rather than passive recipients of comments. Overall findings show that AI access alone is insufficient; purposeful workflow design is central to productive feedback use.

Providing timely and actionable feedback on oral presentation slides is challenging in higher education, particularly in large classes where teachers cannot realistically deliver detailed formative feedback before students present. This paper introduces AISSA (AI-based Student Slides Analysis tool), a web-based system that combines large language models (LLMs) and Learning Analytics dashboards to support scalable, rubric-based feedback on presentation slides. AISSA allows students to upload their slide decks prior to an oral presentation and automatically receive quantitative scores and qualitative feedback based on teacher-defined evaluation rubrics. The system analyzes both slide-level features and slide content, generates structured feedback through an LLM (ChatGPT 5.2), and presents the results through interactive dashboards for students and teachers. We tested AISSA on a pilot deployment with 46 undergraduate students in a real academic setting. The results indicate that AISSA is technically reliable, economically feasible, and perceived by students as useful for iterative slide improvement. These findings suggest that combining LLM-based analysis with Learning Analytics dashboards is a promising approach for supporting formative feedback on presentation slides at scale.

AI-augmented classrooms generate rich teacher and student feedback before graded outcomes become available, yet these signals can be difficult to translate into timely instructional decisions. We propose an interpretable decision layer: a transparent mechanism that ranks course topics requiring attention without using grades or post-hoc outcome labels. The approach combines three signals: student learning difficulty prevalence, disagreement between learner self-reports and observed difficulties, and unresolved teacher concerns. The output is a ranked set of topic priorities with per-topic decision records explaining each ranking. In one graduate CS course offering ($n=5$ instructor interviews; $n=279$ survey responses), prioritized topics aligned with instructor concerns (top-5 overlap 3/5; Spearman $ρ=0.80$) and student-reported topic difficulty ($ρ=0.46$, $p=.048$). Multi-signal integration also surfaced learners not identified through individual signal sources alone (AUC $=0.96$ vs. $0.91$ for gap prevalence alone). Reflective thinking, help-seeking, and self-efficacy provided additional evidence that student behavioral signals align with learning-related constructs. While preliminary, these findings suggest that transparent coordination mechanisms may help support human-AI co-agency when feedback is incomplete.