This study examines the transparent use of generative AI (GenAI) tools in higher‑education writing assessment. In an undergraduate technical communication course for computing students at a Saudi public university, thirteen male students completed an in‑class handwritten writing task. Their scanned submissions were evaluated by ChatGPT using a rubric‑based prompt aligned with the task objectives. Afterward, students were explicitly told that the score and feedback were generated by an AI system and were asked to reflect on the evaluation in writing.
Inductive thematic analysis of the reflections identified four main themes: perceived usefulness of feedback – students found AI feedback helpful for surface‑level revisions such as grammar and word choice; awareness of AI’s contextual and pedagogical limitations – students recognized that AI may lack deep disciplinary understanding; conditional trust, distinguishing feedback utility from evaluative authority – students accepted the feedback but remained cautious about AI’s grading authority; and reflection on the institutional and pedagogical role of the human instructor – students consistently viewed the teacher as the appropriate authority for final grading decisions.
Overall, participants treated GenAI feedback as a useful tool for improving writing while positioning the human instructor as the rightful grader. This reveals a clear separation in students’ minds between “feedback utility” and “evaluative authority,” rather than viewing them as opposite ends of a single approval scale.
Review