Evaluation of Science Learning through Artificial Intelligence-Based Formative Feedback among Primary School Teacher Education Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33394/j-ps.v14i3.20462Keywords:
Artificial intelligence, Formative feedback, Science, Learning evaluation, Primary school teacher educationAbstract
This study examines the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based formative feedback in the evaluation of science (IPA) learning among Primary School Teacher Education (PGSD) students. It addresses the limitations of conventional evaluation, particularly delayed feedback and the limited opportunities for conceptual correction in science learning. The study employed a mixed-methods approach with an explanatory sequential design; the quantitative component used a one-group pretest–posttest pre-experimental design without a control group, involving 40 students across two classes. The intervention used a web-based AI-driven digital evaluation application that generated generative and personalized feedback. Quantitative data were collected through pretest–posttest scores and a questionnaire, while qualitative data were obtained through interviews and system log analysis. The results show a statistically significant increase in learning-outcome scores after implementation, with a moderate improvement (6–7 points) and a medium effect size (Cohen's d = 0.65). The quality of AI-based feedback was categorized as good (mean = 3.13), particularly in terms of speed and usefulness, with a response time of less than five seconds. Qualitative findings indicate that immediate feedback supported conceptual understanding, helped identify misconceptions, and encouraged reflective learning behavior; however, limitations were found in feedback clarity and network stability. Because of the absence of a control group, this improvement cannot be fully attributed to AI feedback. The findings are preliminary and context-bound, yet indicate a positive contribution of AI-based formative feedback as an adaptive evaluation tool that needs to be tested with stronger designs.
References
Anand, S., Holzmann, U., & Payumo, A. Y. (2026). AI-assisted qualitative analysis of formative feedback to support student-centered learning in physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 50(1), 244–248. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00252.2024
Aristovnik, A., Keržič, D., Ravšelj, D., Tomaževič, N., & Umek, L. (2020). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the life of higher education students: A global perspective. Sustainability, 12(20), Article 8438. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208438
Bashraheel, M., & Ghinea, G. (2026). How does leveraging artificial intelligence in assessments impact student outcomes? A systematic review. Computer Science Review, 61, Article 100929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2026.100929
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
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/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Cavalcanti, A. P., Barbosa, A., Carvalho, R., Freitas, F., Tsai, Y.-S., Gašević, D., & Mello, R. F. (2021). Automatic feedback in online learning environments: A systematic literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, Article 100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100027
Corbett, B. J., & Tangen, J. M. (2026). AI tutors vs. tenacious myths: Evidence from personalised dialogue interventions in education. Computers in Human Behavior, 175, Article 108828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108828
du Plooy, E., Casteleijn, D., & Franzsen, D. (2024). Personalized adaptive learning in higher education: A scoping review of key characteristics and impact on academic performance and engagement. Heliyon, 10(21), Article e39630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39630
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), Article 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2
Fleckenstein, J., Liebenow, L. W., & Meyer, J. (2023). Automated feedback and writing: A multilevel meta-analysis of effects on students’ performance. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6, Article 1162454. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1162454
Georgara, A., Santolini, M., Kokshagina, O., Haux, C. J. J., Jacobs, D., Biwott, G., Correa, M., Sierra, C., Fernandez-Marquez, J. L., & Rodriguez-Aguilar, J. A. (2025). Optimising team dynamics: The role of AI in enhancing challenge-based learning participation experience and outcomes. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, Article 100388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100388
Geschwind, S., Graf, J., Voss, D., & Hackl, V. (2026). GPT-4 feedback increases student activation and learning outcomes in higher education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 36(1–2), Article 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijaied.2026.100014
Gierus, B., Du, T., Maduforo, A. N., Gilbert, B., & Koh, K. (2025). Prevalence and quality of mixed methods research in educational subdisciplines: A systematic review. SAGE Open, 15(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251335171
Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005
Johar, N. A., Kew, S. N., Tasir, Z., & Koh, E. (2023). Learning analytics on student engagement to enhance students’ learning performance: A systematic review. Sustainability, 15(10), Article 7849. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107849
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., . . . Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Article 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kusnadi, K., Lazuardi, Z., & Surakusumah, W. (2019). The conceptual change of the human respiratory system through POE-based learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1280(3), Article 032009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1280/3/032009
Lim, L., Bannert, M., van der Graaf, J., Singh, S., Fan, Y., Surendrannair, S., Rakovic, M., Molenaar, I., Moore, J., & Gašević, D. (2023). Effects of real-time analytics-based personalized scaffolds on students’ self-regulated learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, Article 107547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107547
Mahardika, N. I., & Zainuddin, A. (2022). Application of formative assessment to analyze students’ problem-solving skills. Prisma Sains: Jurnal Pengkajian Ilmu dan Pembelajaran Matematika dan IPA IKIP Mataram, 10(2), 226. https://doi.org/10.33394/j-ps.v10i2.4947
Mientus, L., Wulff, P., Nowak, A., & Borowski, A. (2026). When AI feedback was still in its infancy: An exploratory comparison of early AI feedback attempts on preservice physics teachers’ reflective writing. Education Sciences, 16(2), Article 301. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16020301
Mizumoto, A., & Eguchi, M. (2023). Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(2), Article 100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100050
Moturu, V. R., & Nethi, S. D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education. In Lecture notes in networks and systems (Vol. 478, pp. 233–244). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2940-3_16
Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2023). A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789
Nazaretsky, T., Gabbay, H., & Käser, T. (2026). Can students judge like experts? A large-scale study on the pedagogical quality of AI and human personalized formative feedback. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 10, Article 100533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100533
Nurjanah, S., Istiyono, E., Widihastuti, W., Iqbal, M., & Kamal, S. (2023). The application of Aiken’s V method for evaluating the content validity of instruments that measure the implementation of formative assessments. Journal of Research and Educational Research Evaluation, 12(2), 2023–2125. http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/jere
Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
Panadero, E., Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. (2018). Fusing self-regulated learning and formative assessment: A roadmap of where we are, how we got here, and where we are going. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0258-y
Ryan, T., Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2019). Feedback modes matter: Comparing student perceptions of digital and nondigital feedback modes in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1507–1523. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12749
Schäfer, T., & Schwarz, M. A. (2019). The meaningfulness of effect sizes in psychological research: Differences between subdisciplines and the impact of potential biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00813
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 on students’ writing. Learning and Instruction, 91, Article 101894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894
Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C. W., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475–511. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314564881
Verawati, N. N. S. P., Wahyudi, W., Nisrina, N., & Asy’ari, M. (2025). ChatGPT in physics education: A content-based analysis of Newtonian force problems. Prisma Sains: Jurnal Pengkajian Ilmu dan Pembelajaran Matematika dan IPA IKIP Mataram, 13(2), 335. https://doi.org/10.33394/j-ps.v13i2.15824
Wang, W., Wang, Y., Chen, J., Wang, X., Zhang, H., Guo, C., & Peng, Y. (2025). The effectiveness of AI-supported personalized feedback on students’ learning outcomes and motivation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331251410020
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/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087
Yan, L., Sha, L., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Chen, G., Li, X., Jin, Y., & Gašević, D. (2024). Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13370
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muh Nasir, Juryatina Juryatina, Mei Indra Jayanti, M Ekahidayatullah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
