Page 685 - ISC PROCEEDINGS 21.4

Figure 3. Example of “Highlight” report provided by the system
The system’s feedback is provided through inline annotations. It has an overall
summary of the assignment along with explanatory comments. Rather than editing or
rewriting students’ work, the system highlights common errors and explains them, often
with examples to support understanding. This design encourages learners to actively
engage with the feedback and apply it not only to the current task but also to future
writing, fostering long-term critical thinking skills.
In addition, spelling and grammar feedback focuses on identifying recurring error
patterns across the document. These issues are clearly marked and explained, with
illustrative examples to help students better understand and correct their writing
effectively.
Student workflow with AIFS
The platform is designed specifically for written tasks, other assessment formats
such as examinations, presentations, or online participation are not included. Students
are encouraged to use the system multiple times before submission, as repeated
interaction helps them monitor progress and refine their work more effectively.
The typical workflow involves several stages. First, students access the assignment
instructions questions. They then prepare a draft based on the given criteria and relevant
course knowledge. Once completed, the draft is uploaded to the AIFS platform to receive
automated formative feedback. Students can resubmit revised drafts multiple times,
using the feedback to iteratively enhance their work. Finally, after making the necessary
improvements, they submit the final version for grading. This iterative process helps
produce assignments that are more polished, well-structured, and aligned with the
intended learning outcomes.
6. Learners’ evaluation
A total of 351 students completed the survey, accounting for 28.2% of users
involved in the pilot. Among the respondents, 78.3% were female and 21.7% male, with
an average age of 31.3 years. In terms of study level, 57.3% were postgraduate students,
while 42.7% were undergraduates. On average, students engaged with the system
approximately twice during the semester.
The survey findings are summarised in Table 1.

684