Chatbots are tools that have been developed to improve the machine-human interface for better communication and interaction as well as for more efficient and cost-reducing services. They are well known in and for online business approaches. Its use has been started and is discussed in education as well, but the application is sometimes seen as a potential or even a threat that might compromise proper learning opportunities for students. One might see similar and additional effects with the introduction of digital media seen as an environmental condition, where one can recognize that the average IQ of students has decreased in the last years (Bratsberg & Rogeberg, 2018). Another main concern is the risk to open the backdoor for plagiarism by developing text in learning contexts by students themselves. However, reviews (Okonkwo & Ade-Ibijola, 2021, Pérez & Daradoumis & Puig 2020, Cunningham-Nelson et al., 2019) on chatbots/AI applications in education called edubots show the variation of and the potential quality of its use in the educational sector. Efforts and initiatives are on their way to improve their architecture for educational purposes (Sjøstrøm et al., 2018).

Whereas applications for students are implemented and under research for instance in Learning Management Systems (Lee et al., 2020) to assist students learning, applications for teachers specifically on assessment are less in focus with some exceptions. Just 6 % of the edubots support assessment activities (Okonkwo & Ade-Ibijola, 2021, p.5-6). An eclective literature search in Oria (Norwegian electronic library tool) used here as an example of the research and publication distribution has shown that the search on ‘edubots’ resulted in 93 hits, whereas just 19 were related to ‘edubots & teachers’ as well and just 11 hits on the search topics of ‘edubots, teachers, and assessment’.

Roots of the edubots for teachers one can see in the tutorial systems (TS) in the 1960 (Opwis, 2001) which have later become intelligent, supported by AI called ITS. At that time computerized assessment was an equal part of it, but rather or mostly from a quantitative point of view.

Therefore, this paper will focus on the potential to support better qualitative assessment which lies in the learning potential of written feedback. This is not meant to replace the teachers’ educational autonomy and duty in doing assessment tasks him/herself. The intention is to reduce the workload of routine tasks in assessment whereas more room and time is given for more specific detailed written feedback. As one knows, feedback can lead to cognitive dissonance, that is, disagreement (Goldring, 2015) so that feedback needs to be given with consideration. To summarize the research intention: The project is done from the perspective of typical university teachers to be able to provide edubot-supported, improved specified feedback on students’ written midterm assignments.

Research question: What kind of support can edubots provide for teachers working on written feedback reports?

An exploratory study will be conducted. A university course on the bachelor’s level in international education will be used as a platform. The students’ midterm assignments will be used as input for the written edubot-supported feedback. Before starting this exploratory study, we will do a pilot as a feasibility study using two different edubots on written assignments from the last year’s term and discuss these results. As well the teachers who have been responsible for the last term will be included. Then the exploratory study will make use of the actual assignments and the students’ deliveries of the spring semester in 2023 due for hand-in in March this year. The feedback itself which will be delivered to the students will be twofold. On the one hand, the feedback on the written assignment will be generated by an open access edubot. On the other hand, the teachers will be asked to give additional feedback on the assignment from his /her point of view to ensure the quality of the feedback. This combined-written feedback will be delivered as in one piece to the student. The students will be asked if the written feedback was helpful as well as they should specify what was actually contributing to their insights or learning progress. If possible, we will use this approach in another course for VET teachers as well to expand the databases. In addition, we will conduct semi-structured interviews with the teachers experiencing the feedback and assessment process by edubot support.

The results expected are to show that the edubot is not just a tool for students to improve learning opportunities but as well enriches the teachers’ opportunities for improved feedback on regular midterm assignments. Specifically, this exploratory approach will reveal in which different ways feedback can be provided as well as it might ‘free’ the teacher from writing similar responses. This happens for university teachers on a regular basis, because of the fact that examination often asks about the same problem, project, or phenomenon. Hence, the teacher can specify on the one hand based on his/her specific knowledge and competence the feedback which is to be provided encouraging and motivating as well (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Goldring et al., 2015) because one knows that this will influence the way it will be used for further learning.

Raquel Aguayo, Yadira Quiñonez, Víctor Reyes and Jezreel Mejia (2023). A New Proposal for Virtual Academic Advisories Using ChatBots in, New Perspectives in Software Engineering, vol. 576, pp.233. Bernt Bratsberg and Ole Rogeberg (2018). Flynn effect and its reversal are both environmentally caused. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115-26, pp 6674–6678. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1718793115 Sam Cunningham-Nelson, Wageeh Boles, Luke Trouton, and Emily Margerison (2019). A review of chatbots in education: Practical steps forward. In 30th Annual Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE 2019): Educators Becoming Agents of Change: Innovate, Integrate, Motivate. Engineers Australia, Australia. Edubots (n.d.). Best Practices of Pedagogical Chatbots in Higher Education.Reference Number: 612466-EPP-1-2019-1-NO-EPPKA2-KA, https://www.edubots.eu Ellen B. Goldring, Madeleine Mavrogordato, & Kathrine Taylor Haynes (2015). Multisource Principal Evaluation Data: Principals’ Orientations and Reactions to Teacher Feedback Regarding Their Leadership Effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(4), 572–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X14556152 John Hattie & Helen Timperley (2007). The power of feedback, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 81-112. L. -K. Lee, Y. -C. Fung, Y. -W. Pun, K. -K. Wong, M. T. -Y. Yu and N. -I. Wu,(2020). "Using a Multiplatform Chatbot as an Online Tutor in a University Course," 2020 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET), Bangkok, Thailand, 2020, pp. 53-56, doi: 10.1109/ISET49818.2020.00021. Carmen Lizarraga, Chinedu Wilfred Okonkwo, Abejide Ade-Ibijola (2021). Chatbots Applications in Education: A Systematic Review” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. Klaus Opwis (2001). Instructional Technology: Cognitive Science Perspectives, (Eds), Neil J. Smelser, Paul B. Baltes, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Pergamon, pp. 7573-7577, https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01476-5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767014765 José Quiroga Pérez, Thanasis Daradoumis, Joan Manuel Marquès Puig (2020). Rediscovering the use of chatbots in education: A systematic literature review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(6), 1549–1565. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22326 Jonas Sjöström, Nam Aghaee, Maritha Dahlin, and Pär J. Ågerfalk(2018). DESIGNING CHATBOTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION PRACTIC" (2018). Proceedings of the 2018 AIS SIGED International Conference on Information Systems Education and Research. 4. https://aisel.aisnet.org/siged2018/4