Comparison of Feedback from ChatGPT and Human Professors in Higher Education: A Systematic Review
Objectives: To compare the feedback provided by human professors and ChatGPT on university students’ work and to report on students’ perceptions of both types of feedback. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Databases searched included Web of Sc...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo de revisión |
| Lenguaje: | inglés |
| Publicado: |
2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Enlace permanente (DOI o Handle) Descargar el archivo |
| Etiquetas: |
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| _version_ | 1881700488839168000 |
|---|---|
| author | Candy Haydee Guardia Paniura Timoteo Cueva Luza Favio Mauricio Cruz-Carpio Raúl Reynaldo Ito Díaz David Victor Apaza-Paco Nilda Rosas Rojas Benedicta Mamani-Mamani Ángel Terrero-Pérez Renato Yassutaka Faria Yaedú Mariela Peralta-Mamani |
| author_browse | Benedicta Mamani-Mamani Candy Haydee Guardia Paniura David Victor Apaza-Paco Favio Mauricio Cruz-Carpio Mariela Peralta-Mamani Nilda Rosas Rojas Raúl Reynaldo Ito Díaz Renato Yassutaka Faria Yaedú Timoteo Cueva Luza Ángel Terrero-Pérez |
| author_facet | Candy Haydee Guardia Paniura Timoteo Cueva Luza Favio Mauricio Cruz-Carpio Raúl Reynaldo Ito Díaz David Victor Apaza-Paco Nilda Rosas Rojas Benedicta Mamani-Mamani Ángel Terrero-Pérez Renato Yassutaka Faria Yaedú Mariela Peralta-Mamani |
| author_sort | Candy Haydee Guardia Paniura |
| collection | Producción científica |
| description | Objectives: To compare the feedback provided by human professors and ChatGPT on university students’ work and to report on students’ perceptions of both types of feedback. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Databases searched included Web of Science, SCOPUS, EBSCO, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore, with additional gray literature sources, until February 2025. Inclusion criteria were cross-sectional studies evaluating university students’ work, comparing feedback from ChatGPT with human professors. Data extraction was performed using a standardized form, and risk of bias was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis of the results was made. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024566691. Results: The review included 8 studies with 461 students. ChatGPT feedback was detailed and rapid, while human feedback was valued for its personalization and emotional support. The differences between ChatGPT and human feedback were insignificant, as both were similar. Students appreciated the detailed and immediate nature of ChatGPT feedback but noted its lack of emotional nuance and context-specific guidance. Human feedback was preferred for addressing individual learning needs and providing affective support. A combination of both types of feedback can maximize benefits. Conclusions: ChatGPT can assist human teachers by providing detailed and timely feedback to university students. However, human supervision is essential to ensure feedback is nuanced and contextually appropriate. A hybrid approach can optimize the learning experience in higher education. Further research is necessary to explore AI applications in educational settings and understand their impact on learning outcomes. |
| format | Review |
| id | openalex:W4412689076 |
| institution | UPeU |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publishDateRange | 2025 |
| publishDateSort | 2025 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | openalex:W4412689076Comparison of Feedback from ChatGPT and Human Professors in Higher Education: A Systematic ReviewCandy Haydee Guardia PaniuraTimoteo Cueva LuzaFavio Mauricio Cruz-CarpioRaúl Reynaldo Ito DíazDavid Victor Apaza-PacoNilda Rosas RojasBenedicta Mamani-MamaniÁngel Terrero-PérezRenato Yassutaka Faria YaedúMariela Peralta-MamaniChatGPTAI-generated feedbackstudent perceptionshigher educationstudent work assessmentemotional supportartificial intelligence in educationArtificial Intelligence in EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationObjectives: To compare the feedback provided by human professors and ChatGPT on university students’ work and to report on students’ perceptions of both types of feedback. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Databases searched included Web of Science, SCOPUS, EBSCO, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore, with additional gray literature sources, until February 2025. Inclusion criteria were cross-sectional studies evaluating university students’ work, comparing feedback from ChatGPT with human professors. Data extraction was performed using a standardized form, and risk of bias was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis of the results was made. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024566691. Results: The review included 8 studies with 461 students. ChatGPT feedback was detailed and rapid, while human feedback was valued for its personalization and emotional support. The differences between ChatGPT and human feedback were insignificant, as both were similar. Students appreciated the detailed and immediate nature of ChatGPT feedback but noted its lack of emotional nuance and context-specific guidance. Human feedback was preferred for addressing individual learning needs and providing affective support. A combination of both types of feedback can maximize benefits. Conclusions: ChatGPT can assist human teachers by providing detailed and timely feedback to university students. However, human supervision is essential to ensure feedback is nuanced and contextually appropriate. A hybrid approach can optimize the learning experience in higher education. Further research is necessary to explore AI applications in educational settings and understand their impact on learning outcomes.Reviewhttps://doi.org/10.4236/jcc.2025.137013https://www.scirp.org/pdf/jcc_1733224.pdfW4412689076enJournal of Computer and Communications2327-52192327-52272025-01-01 |
| spellingShingle | ChatGPT AI-generated feedback student perceptions higher education student work assessment emotional support artificial intelligence in education Artificial Intelligence in Education Student Assessment and Feedback Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education Candy Haydee Guardia Paniura Timoteo Cueva Luza Favio Mauricio Cruz-Carpio Raúl Reynaldo Ito Díaz David Victor Apaza-Paco Nilda Rosas Rojas Benedicta Mamani-Mamani Ángel Terrero-Pérez Renato Yassutaka Faria Yaedú Mariela Peralta-Mamani Comparison of Feedback from ChatGPT and Human Professors in Higher Education: A Systematic Review |
| title | Comparison of Feedback from ChatGPT and Human Professors in Higher Education: A Systematic Review |
| title_full | Comparison of Feedback from ChatGPT and Human Professors in Higher Education: A Systematic Review |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Feedback from ChatGPT and Human Professors in Higher Education: A Systematic Review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Feedback from ChatGPT and Human Professors in Higher Education: A Systematic Review |
| title_short | Comparison of Feedback from ChatGPT and Human Professors in Higher Education: A Systematic Review |
| title_sort | comparison of feedback from chatgpt and human professors in higher education a systematic review |
| topic | ChatGPT AI-generated feedback student perceptions higher education student work assessment emotional support artificial intelligence in education Artificial Intelligence in Education Student Assessment and Feedback Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education |
| topic_facet | ChatGPT AI-generated feedback student perceptions higher education student work assessment emotional support artificial intelligence in education Artificial Intelligence in Education Student Assessment and Feedback Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education |
| url | https://doi.org/10.4236/jcc.2025.137013 https://www.scirp.org/pdf/jcc_1733224.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT candyhaydeeguardiapaniura comparisonoffeedbackfromchatgptandhumanprofessorsinhighereducationasystematicreview AT timoteocuevaluza comparisonoffeedbackfromchatgptandhumanprofessorsinhighereducationasystematicreview AT faviomauriciocruzcarpio comparisonoffeedbackfromchatgptandhumanprofessorsinhighereducationasystematicreview AT raulreynaldoitodiaz comparisonoffeedbackfromchatgptandhumanprofessorsinhighereducationasystematicreview AT davidvictorapazapaco comparisonoffeedbackfromchatgptandhumanprofessorsinhighereducationasystematicreview AT nildarosasrojas comparisonoffeedbackfromchatgptandhumanprofessorsinhighereducationasystematicreview AT benedictamamanimamani comparisonoffeedbackfromchatgptandhumanprofessorsinhighereducationasystematicreview AT angelterreroperez comparisonoffeedbackfromchatgptandhumanprofessorsinhighereducationasystematicreview AT renatoyassutakafariayaedu comparisonoffeedbackfromchatgptandhumanprofessorsinhighereducationasystematicreview AT marielaperaltamamani comparisonoffeedbackfromchatgptandhumanprofessorsinhighereducationasystematicreview |