Navigating AI feedback: Changing perceptions and argumentation skills in science teacher education

Abstract

This study aimed to examine pre-service teachers’ (PST) perceptions of AI-supported argument feedback (AIAF), changes in their perceptions, argument level and component development, process experiences, and to derive principles for AIAF design. The research was conducted in two cycles using the Design-Based Research approach. In the first cycle, prompts based on the Toulmin argumentation model (2003) and Erduran et al. (2004)’s argument level framework was developed for ChatGPT (GPT-4). In the second cycle, these prompts were tested through transcripts of scenario-based discussions with PSTs to provide personalized feedback. Data were collected from semi-structured interviews, discussion transcripts, and AI-generated feedback outputs. The study group consisted of nine science PSTs selected through purposive sampling from a state university in Turkey. The findings showed that the PSTs’ perceptions of feedback evolved from a descriptive level to a pedagogical and affective understanding; they began to see AI as a complementary tool. While the quantity of arguments decreased, their quality increased; progress was made in refutation and multi-component argument production. PSTs found AI feedback positive in terms of speed and motivation but limited in terms of personalization. The study recommends the principles of holistic argument analysis, speed, interaction, and individualization for AI-supported feedback design. This study presents original data to the relevant literature, and its findings form the basis for a comprehensive study currently being conducted with a larger sample using a pre-test–post-test design.

Keywords

• Argumentation
• Feedback
• Artificial Intelligence
• Design-Based Research
• Pre-Service Teacher

Ethical Statement

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Aydın Adnan Menderes University (Protocol No: 2025/10-XXVII). All methods were carried out in accordance with the approved protocol and relevant ethical guidelines and regulations.

References

1. Adalberon, E. (2021). Providing assessment feedback to pre-service teachers: a study of examiners’ comments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(4), 601-614. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1795081
2. Alawad, E. A. (2025). AI-driven analysis: A case study on assessing argumentation proficiency and skill development through sequential submissions. Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations, 24(1), 108-117.
3. Alejandro, I. M. V., Sanchez, J. M. P., Sumalinog, G. G., Mananay, J. A., Goles, C. E., & Fernandez, C. B. (2024). Pre-service teachers’ technology acceptance of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in education. STEM Education, 4(4), 445-465. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2024024
4. Amir, A. (2026). AI-generated dialogic feedback: Designing a pedagogical chatbot grounded in literacy resilience principles. Education Sciences, 16(2), 318.
5. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational researcher, 41(1), 16-25. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x11428813
6. Atabey, N. (2021). Science teachers’ argument types and supporting reasons on socioscientific issues: Covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 8(2), 214-231.
7. Aydeniz, M., & Ozdilek, Z. (2016). Assessing and enhancing pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy to teach science through argumentation: Challenges and possible solutions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1255-1273. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9649-y
8. Ba, S., Zhan, Y., Huang, L., & Lu, G. (2025). Investigating the impact of ChatGPT‐assisted feedback on the dynamics and outcomes of online inquiry‐based discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13605

9. Bauer, E., Greisel, M., Kuznetsov, I., Berndt, M., Kollar, I., Dresel, M., Fischer, M. R., & Fischer, F. (2023). Using natural language processing to support peer‐feedback in the age of artificial intelligence: A cross‐disciplinary framework and a research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(5), 1222-1245. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13336
10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
11. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The journal of the learning sciences, 2(2), 141-178. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
12. Cai, L., Msafiri, M. M., & Kangwa, D. (2025). Exploring the impact of integrating AI tools in higher education using the Zone of Proximal Development. Education and Information Technologies, 30(6), 7191-7264. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13112-0
13. Çakiroğlu, Ü., Güven, O., Yaman, H., & Güven, E. M. (2025). Scientific habits of arguing minds: enhancing online argumentation to foster SHOM. Educational Technology Research and Development, 73, 1865–1889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-025-10474-1
14. Çam, M. B., Çelik, N. C., Güntepe, E. T., & Durukan, Ü. G. (2021). Öğretmen adaylarının yapay zekâ teknolojileri ile ilgili farkındalıklarının belirlenmesi [Determining the awareness of teacher candidates about artificial ıntelligence technologies]. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18(48), 263-285.
15. Capkinoglu, E., Yilmaz, S., & Leblebicioglu, G. (2020). Quality of argumentation by seventh‐graders in local socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(6), 827-855. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21609
16. Carless, D. (2022). From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: Activating the learner role in feedback processes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 143-153. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787420945845
17. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
18. Carlile, W., Gurrapadi, N., Ke, Z., & Ng, V. (2018). Give me more feedback: Annotating argument persuasiveness and related attributes in student essays. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers),
19. Chen, C.-M. (2008). Intelligent web-based learning system with personalized learning path guidance. Computers & Education, 51(2), 787-814.
20. Chotijah, H. Y., Suparman, S., Kusumaningtyas, D. A., & Raman, A. (2025). Global Research Trends on 21st Century Teacher Competency Using Bibliometric Analysis. Studies in Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 305-319.
21. Christenson, N., & Walan, S. (2023). Developing pre-service teachers’ competence in assessing socioscientific argumentation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 34(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560x.2021.2018103
22. Cramer, J., & Kempen, L. (2022). Toulmin and beyond: Structuring and analyzing argumentation. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME12). European Society for Research in Mathematics Education.
23. Diola, W. Y., Jalon Jr, J. B., & Prudente, M. S. (2025). Exploring the use of claim-data-reasoning in promoting scientific reasoning skills of elementary school students. Anatolian Journal of Education, 10(1), 203-214. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.29333/aje.2025.10115a
24. Duran, V. (2024). Analyzing teacher candidates' arguments on AI integration in education via different chatbots. Digital Education Review, 45, 68-83. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2024.45.68-83
25. Engeness, I., & Gamlem, S. M. (2025). Exploring AI-driven feedback as a cultural tool: A cultural-historical perspective on design of AI environments to support students’ writing process. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 59(1), 23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-025-09894-8
26. Erduran, S. (2018). Toulmin’s argument pattern as a “horizon of possibilities” in the study of argumentation in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(4), 1091-1099. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9847-8
27. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science education, 88(6), 915-933. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
28. Escalante, J., Pack, A., & Barrett, A. (2023). AI-generated feedback on writing: Insights into efficacy and ENL student preference. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2
29. Fadillah, R., & Deta, U. (2020). The process of developing students’ scientific argumentation skill using argument-driven inquiry (ADI) model in senior high school on the topic of elasticity. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1491(1), 012046. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1491/1/012046
30. Fakhriyah, F., Rusilowati, A., Nugroho, S. E., Saptono, S., Ridlo, S., Mindyarto, B., & Susilaningsih, E. (2022). The scientific argumentative skill analysis reviewed from the science literacy aspect of pre-service teacher. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 11(4), 2129. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v11i4.22847
31. Farrokhnia, M., Latifi, S., Papadopoulos, P. M., Hogenkamp, L., Gijlers, H., Khosravi, H., & Noroozi, O. (2026). Generative AI offers more, but students revise less: comparing the effects of teacher and AI feedback on student essay revisions. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 23(1), 6.
32. Finlay, L. (2021). Thematic analysis: the ‘good’, the ‘bad’ and the ‘ugly’. European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, 11, 103-116. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24377/EJQRP.article3062
33. Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281
34. Gu, J., Tang, L., Liu, X., & Xu, J. (2022). Promoting pre-service teacher students’ learning engagement: Design-based research in a flipped classroom. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 810275. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.810275
35. Guerraoui, C., Reisert, P., Inoue, N., Mim, F. S., Singh, K., Choi, J., Robbani, I., Naito, S., Wang, W., & Inui, K. (2023). Teach me how to argue: a survey on NLP feedback systems in argumentation In M. Alshomary, C.-C. Chen, S. Muresan, J. Park, & J. Romberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Argument Mining (pp. 19-34). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.argmining-1.3
36. Guo, K., Li, D., Wang, J., & Chu, S. K. W. (2025). From retrieval to generative models: a design-based research approach to developing a chatbot for argumentative writing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1-15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2025.2511273
37. Guo, K., Pan, M., Li, Y., & Lai, C. (2024). Effects of an AI-supported approach to peer feedback on university EFL students' feedback quality and writing ability. The Internet and Higher Education, 63, 100962. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2024.100962
38. Han-Tosunoglu, C., Özer-Aker, F., & Ağlarcı-Özdemir, O. (2025). Transformative Shifts in Informal Reasoning of Pre-Service Teachers in a Real-Time Health Issue. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 36(3), 316-350.
39. Hardcastle, J. M., Herrmann Abell, C. F., & DeBoer, G. E. (2021). Validating a claim-data-science idea-reasoning (CESR) framework for use in NGSS assessment tasks (Grantee Submission, Issue. A. A. f. t. A. o. Science.
40. Haseski, H. I. (2019). What do Turkish pre-service teachers think about artificial intelligence? International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 3(2), 3-23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v3i2.55
41. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
42. Hopfenbeck, T. N., Zhang, Z., Sun, S. Z., Robertson, P., & McGrane, J. A. (2023). Challenges and opportunities for classroom-based formative assessment and AI: a perspective article. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1270700. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1270700
43. Hornstein, J., Greisel, M., & Kollar, I. (2025). Promoting pre-service teachers’ data-informed reasoning through peer-feedback: effects of a feedback provision scaffold and a feedback integration scaffold. Instructional Science, 1-27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-025-09745-4
44. Htaw, M. C., Pipa, D., Sriwattanarothai, N., Pichitpornchai, C., Gubelmann, R., Seufert, S., Niklaus, C., & Handschuh, S. (2024). Argumentative writing software: perceptions of undergraduate students toward artist prototype. In 2024 IEEE 7th Eurasian Conference on Educational Innovation (ECEI) (pp. 92-96). IEEE. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/ECEI60433.2024.10510808
45. Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers' data-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning and Instruction, 34, 42-57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.004
46. İşler, B., & Kılıç, M. (2021). Eğitimde yapay zekâ kullanimi ve gelişimi [The use and development of artificial intelligence in education]. Yeni Medya Elektronik Dergisi, 5(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.17932/IAU.EJNM.25480200.2021/ejnm_v5i1001
47. Jaramillo, J. J., Chiappe, A., & Delgado, F. S. (2025). From struggle to mastery: AI-powered writing skills in ESL education. Applied Sciences, 15(14), 8079.
48. Jho, H., & Ha, M. (2024). Towards effective argumentation: design and implementation of a generative AI-based evaluation and feedback system. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 23(2), 280-291. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/24.23.280
49. Kavitha, M., Roobini, S., Prasanth, A., & Sujaritha, M. (2023). Systematic view and impact of artificial intelligence in smart healthcare systems, principles, challenges and applications. In S. H. Tawseef Ayoub Shaikh, Tabasum Rasool, Mohammed Wasid (Ed.), Machine learning and artificial intelligence in healthcare systems (pp. 25-56). Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003265436-2
50. Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation practices in classroom: Pre-service teachers' conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139-1158. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.770935
51. Khishfe, R. (2025). Nature of science conceptions and argumentation skills in different socioscientific contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 47(12), 1542-1567.
52. Kim, M. K., Kim, N. J., & Heidari, A. (2022). Learner experience in artificial intelligence-scaffolded argumentation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(8), 1301-1316. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2042792
53. Kim, N. J., & Kim, M. K. (2022). Teacher’s perceptions of using an artificial intelligence-based educational tool for scientific writing. Frontiers in Education, 7, 755914. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.755914
54. Komura, K., & Yamada, S. (2026). Deepening ideas vs. exploring new ones: AI strategy effects in human-AI creative collaboration. PloS one, 21(1), e0340449.
55. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science education, 77(3), 319-337.
56. Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and instruction, 31(4), 456-496.
57. Lin, S.-S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993-1017. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9215-6
58. Lin, Y. R., Jiao, X., & Hung, C. Y. (2026). Enhancing scientific argumentation with visual scaffolding in generative AI-supported environments. International Journal of Science Education, 1-26.
59. Lipnevich, A., & Panadero, E. (2021). A review of feedback models and theories: Descriptions, definitions, and conclusions. Frontiers in Education, 6, 720195. Frontiers in education, 6, 720195. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.720195
60. Lippi, M., & Torroni, P. (2015). Argument mining: A machine learning perspective. In E. Black, S. Modgil, & N. Oren (Eds.), Theory and applications of formal argumentation (TAFA 2015, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9524, pp. 163–176). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_10
61. Liu, W., & Cui, X. (2024). Generative AI-assisted assisted collaborative argumentation: Implications for the argumentation process and outcome. In 2024 4th International Conference on Educational Technology (ICET) (pp. 220-225). IEEE. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/ICET62460.2024.10868171
62. Ma, Z.-Q., Kong, L.-Y., Tu, Y.-F., Hwang, G.-J., & Lyu, Z.-Y. (2025). Strengthening collaborative argumentation with interactive guidance: a dialogic peer feedback approach based on the six thinking hats strategy. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(1), 296-320. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2344051
63. Macagno, F., & Konstantinidou, A. (2013). What students’ arguments can tell us: Using argumentation schemes in science education. Argumentation, 27(3), 225-243. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9284-5
64. Marco-Bujosa, L., Gonzalez-Howard, M., McNeill, K., & Loper, S. (2017). Designing and using multimedia modules for teacher educators: Supporting teacher learning of scientific argumentation. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 2(4), 1-16.
65. Martín-Gámez, C., & Erduran, S. (2018). Understanding argumentation about socio-scientific issues on energy: a quantitative study with primary pre-service teachers in Spain. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(4), 463-483. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1427568
66. Morawski, M., & Budke, A. (2023). Teaching written argumentation to high school students using peer feedback methods—Case studies on the effectiveness of digital learning units in teacher professionalization. Education Sciences, 13(3), 268. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030268
67. Nazaretsky, T., Mikeska, J. N., & Beigman Klebanov, B. (2023). Empowering teacher learning with AI: Automated evaluation of teacher attention to student ideas during argumentation-focused discussion. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2023) (pp. 122-132). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3576050.3576067
68. Nguyen, N. N., & Barbieri, W. (2025). Mentorship in the age of generative AI: Opportunities and challenges for pre-service teachers. Education Sciences, 15(6), 642.
69. Nusche, D., Staring, F., Rocha, M., & Montague, C. (2025). Empowered citizens, informed consumers and skilled workers: Designing education and skills policies for a sustainable future. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/311cdbeb-en
70. Obaidoon, S., & Wei, H. (2024). ChatGPT, Bard, Bing Chat, and Claude generate feedback for Chinese as foreign language writing: A comparative case study. Future in Educational Research, 2(3), 184-204. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/fer3.39
71. Obermaier, M., & Koch, T. (2024). The paradox of argument strength: how weak arguments undermine the persuasive effects of strong arguments. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 22244.
72. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. science, 328(5977), 463-466.
73. Özmutlu, A. E. (2021). Doğal dil işleme. In T. Talan & C. Aktürk (Eds.), Bilgisayar Bilimlerinde Teorik ve Uygulamalı Araştırmalar [Natural language processing] (pp. 129-154). Efe Akademi Yayınları.
74. Öztürk, B., & Okumus, S. (2022). Evaluating prospective elementary school teachers' written and oral arguments on ecology. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 9(1), 343-360.
75. Prescott, M. R., Yeager, S., Ham, L., Rivera Saldana, C. D., Serrano, V., Narez, J., Paltin, D., Delgado, J., Moore, D. J., & Montoya, J. (2024). Comparing the efficacy and efficiency of human and generative AI: qualitative thematic analyses. JMIR AI, 3, e54482. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2196/54482
76. Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better results. ASCD.
77. Rochmah, A., Suyono, S., & Sutoyo, S. (2025). Development of Assessment as Learning Instruments to Improve Chemistry Pre-Service Teachers’ Argumentation Skills Using AI-Assisted Collaborative Argumentation Online Whiteboard. TEM Journal, 14(4), 3459.
78. Ruwe, T., & Mayweg-Paus, E. (2023). “Your argumentation is good”, says the AI vs humans–The role of feedback providers and personalised language for feedback effectiveness. Computers and education: Artificial intelligence, 5, 100189. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100189
79. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of data in written scientific explanations. Cognition and instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
80. Say, C. (2024). 50 soruda yapay zekâ. Bilim ve Gelecek Kitaplığı.
81. Schen, M. (2013). A comparison of biology majors’ written arguments across the curriculum. Journal of Biological Education, 47(4), 224-231. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.788542
82. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-supported collaborative learning, 5(1), 43-102. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x
83. Schwarts, G., Herbst, P., & Brown, A. M. (2024). Harnessing asynchronous digital simulations of problem-based lessons to support mathematics teachers’ professional development: A design-based approach. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-34. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10514-x
84. Sik, Ç. Ç., Benzer, E., & Saparova, S. (2023). Studying writing skills of science teacher candidates on covıd-19 pandemic and their opinions regarding the vaccine as a socio-scientific ıssue. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18(4), 215-255. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2023.631.10
85. Steiss, J., Tate, T., Graham, S., Cruz, J., Hebert, M., Wang, J., Moon, Y., Tseng, W., Warschauer, M., & Olson, C. B. (2024). Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students’ writing. Learning and Instruction, 91, 101894. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894
86. Tang, X., Tan, L., Sadler, T. D., Kong, Y., & Lin, J. (2025). When structure and content of socioscientific argumentation develop in an unbalanced way: A case study. Science Education, 109(5), 1464–1483. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21975
87. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
88. Ucar-Longford, B., Hosein, A., & Heron, M. (2024). Improving pre-service teachers’ argumentation skills: A holistic online scaffolding design approach. Journal of digital learning in teacher education, 40(2), 76-96.
89. Uçar, B., & Demiraslan Çevik, Y. (2020). The effect of argument mapping supported with peer feedback on pre-service teachers' argumentation skills. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 37(1), 6-29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2020.1815107
90. Uppalapati, V. K., & Nag, D. S. (2024). A comparative analysis of AI models in complex medical decision-making scenarios: evaluating ChatGPT, Claude AI, Bard, and Perplexity. Cureus, 16, e52485. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.52485
91. Usher, M. (2025). Generative AI vs. instructor vs. peer assessments: a comparison of grading and feedback in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2487495
92. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Johnson, R. H., Plantin, C., & Willard, C. A. (2013). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Routledge.
93. Viyanti, V., Cari, C., Sunarno, W., & Prasetyo, Z. K. (2017). Level of skill argued students on physics material. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 895(1), 012043. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012043
94. Walton, D. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3(2), 169-184.
95. Wambsganss, T., Guggisberg, S., & Söllner, M. (2021). Arguebot: A conversational agent for adaptive argumentation feedback Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI 2021), https://aisel.aisnet.org/wi2021/3
96. Wambsganss, T., Janson, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2022). Enhancing argumentative writing with automated feedback and social comparison nudging. Computers & Education, 191, 104644. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104644
97. Wang, L., Chen, X., Wang, C., Xu, L., Shadiev, R., & Li, Y. (2024). ChatGPT's capabilities in providing feedback on undergraduate students’ argumentation: A case study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 51, 101440. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101440
98. Wang, Y.-H. (2020). Design-based research on integrating learning technology tools into higher education classes to achieve active learning. Computers & Education, 156, 103935.
99. Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners' agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational psychologist, 52(1), 17-37. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538
100. Wu, R. (2014). Feedback in distance education: A content analysis of Distance Education: An International Journal, 1980-2013 [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University].
101. Yu, H., & Xie, Q. (2025). Generative AI vs. teachers: Feedback quality, feedback uptake, and revision. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 47, 113-137. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2025.47.07
102. Zhang, J. J., Wang, Y. W., Ruan, Q., & Yang, Y. (2024). Digital tourism interpretation content quality: A comparison between AI-generated content and professional-generated content. Tourism Management Perspectives, 53, 101279. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2024.101279
103. Zhang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2026). Designing ChatGPT-mediated feedback activities in EFL writing: a design-based study of the dialogic feedback triangle. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 51(1), 137-160.
104. Zhou, X., Zhang, J., & Chan, C. (2024). Unveiling students' experiences and perceptions of artificial intelligence usage in higher education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(6), 126-145. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.53761/xzjprb23
105. Zhu, M., Lee, H.-S., Wang, T., Liu, O. L., Belur, V., & Pallant, A. (2017). Investigating the impact of automated feedback on students’ scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 39(12), 1648-1668. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1347303
106. Zhu, M., Liu, O. L., & Lee, H.-S. (2020). The effect of automated feedback on revision behavior and learning gains in formative assessment of scientific argument writing. Computers & Education, 143, 103668. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103668
107. Zinger, D., Naranjo, A., Amador, I., Gilbertson, N., & Warschauer, M. (2017). A design-based research approach to improving professional development and teacher knowledge: The case of the Smithsonian Learning Lab. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(3), 388-410.