Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Article . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Article . 2025 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
ZENODO
Article . 2025
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Article . 2025
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 4 versions
addClaim

Algorithmic Self-Deception: How AI-Generated Feedback Skews Learners' Self-Reflection

Authors: Besigomwe, Kenneth;

Algorithmic Self-Deception: How AI-Generated Feedback Skews Learners' Self-Reflection

Abstract

This study investigated how artificial intelligence (AI)-generated feedback from large language models like ChatGPT affected undergraduate students’ self-assessment accuracy and reflective depth. Conducted with 180 students from Makerere University (Uganda) and the University of Cape Town (South Africa), the research explored the impact of AI feedback compared to human and no feedback, focusing on self-assessment accuracy, reflection quality, and cross-cultural differences. The objectives were to: (i) assess the impact of AI feedback on self-assessment accuracy; (ii) measure its effect on reflection depth and quality; and (iii) compare responses between Makerere and UCT students, considering cultural and contextual factors. Using a mixed-methods experimental design, participants were randomly assigned to receive AI feedback, human feedback, or no feedback on essays. Quantitative data analyzed with ANOVA and t-tests showed that AI feedback improved essay scores (mean 82.5%) significantly over human feedback (80.1%) and no feedback (73.2%). However, AI feedback led to greater overconfidence, evidenced by higher calibration errors (t(58) = 3.28, p = .002), and produced reflections of lower quality compared to human feedback (F(2,177) = 26.4, p < .001). Qualitative analysis revealed that Makerere students tended to trust AI feedback more and exhibited stronger overconfidence than their UCT counterparts. Findings highlighted an “algorithmic self-deception” effect, where AI-generated feedback’s vague positivity inflated learners’ self-perceptions and diminished critical reflection. The study recommended incorporating AI literacy training, developing hybrid human–AI feedback models, and designing culturally sensitive AI tools to foster deeper metacognitive engagement. These strategies were vital to harness AI’s educational potential while addressing its limitations across diverse cultural settings.

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    2
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
2
Top 10%
Average
Average
Green