evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

AI Video vs. Written Feedback — Zayed University's Action-Research Trial on Emirati Undergraduate Writing

United Arab Emirates · Abu Dhabi · See the United Arab Emirates profile · See the Abu Dhabi profile

Evidence: Quasi-experimental Top 86% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

A 2025 Zayed University study split 40 Emirati undergraduates into AI video- and written-feedback groups over three writing tasks. Written feedback gave significantly higher critical-thinking scores (2.80 vs 2.59, p<0.05); video raised engagement and AI-ethics awareness.

M=2.80 (SD=0.75)
Critical-thinking score, written-feedback group (2025)
M=2.59 (SD=0.39)
Critical-thinking score, video-feedback group (2025)
p<0.05
Statistical significance of written vs video difference (2025)
40
Students in study (2024-2025)

Details

Promoter
Zayed University
Period
2024–2025
Keywords
higher education, academic writing, assessment & feedback

Context

As UAE universities scale up generative-AI use in coursework, Zayed University researchers ran a small action-research study to test whether the format of AI-generated feedback — video versus written — changes its effect on undergraduate academic writing and critical thinking.

Activities

Forty Emirati undergraduate students were divided into two groups. Across three writing assignments, one group received AI-generated video feedback and the other AI-generated written feedback. Researchers scored submissions with standardised critical-thinking and academic-writing-skills rubrics, and collected post-assignment surveys on students' engagement, perceptions, and use of AI tools.

Results

The written-feedback group scored significantly higher on critical thinking (M=2.80, SD=0.75) than the video-feedback group (M=2.59, SD=0.39; p<0.05). Video feedback, however, was associated with higher reported engagement and stronger self-reported awareness of ethical AI use.

Conclusions

The authors conclude that hybrid feedback models — combining both formats — may better serve diverse learning needs than either format alone. The study is peer-reviewed and methodologically transparent, but the sample is small (n=40), drawn from a single institution and course context, and outcomes rely partly on self-report surveys; there is no longer-term follow-up on whether the critical-thinking gains persist.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — Not specified; a small-scale, single-institution academic study using AI feedback tools.
Time to results
Short (< 1 year) — Study conducted across three writing assignments within the 2024-2025 academic year.
Staffing & skills
Zayed University research team

Conditions for success

  • Combining both video and written AI feedback formats (hybrid model) to serve diverse learning needs, per the authors' recommendation

Common failure modes

  • Video-only feedback was associated with lower critical-thinking scores than written feedback in this small sample, despite higher engagement

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful