AI, affective development, and the ‘third space’ of learning

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi40.1983

Keywords:

affective development, artificial intelligence, third space, feedback literacy

Abstract

This article explores the emotional dimensions of students’ engagement with assessment feedback and examines how generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly large language models (LLMs), may support learners’ affective development. Although feedback is often framed as a cognitive tool for improvement, it is also an emotional experience shaped by anxiety, uncertainty, and defensiveness, influencing how learners interpret and act on it. Drawing on Homi Bhabha’s concept of the ‘third space’, feedback is conceptualised as a negotiated site between educator intent and learner interpretation. Within this space, learners construct understanding through prior experiences and emotional responses. The article argues that LLMs can mediate this process by making feedback more accessible, actionable, and emotionally manageable, supporting feedback literacy. It also considers risks, including over-reliance on GenAI, reduced interpretive skills, and diminished academic precision. Their value lies in enhancing equitable engagement with feedback rather than replacing academic judgement or educator expertise in higher education.

Author Biography

Manesha Peiris, Queen Mary University of London, UK

Manesha Peiris is Senior Lecturer in Reflective Practice and Project Management and Director of Student Experience at Queen Mary University of London. Her work integrates pedagogy, innovation, and student-centred practice to create inclusive and transformative learning environments. Her scholarship focuses on feminist pedagogy, the affective domain in learning, and technology-enhanced education. Through feminist pedagogy, she examines how teaching can challenge traditional hierarchies, amplify student voices, and promote inclusive approaches to knowledge creation. Her work on the affective domain explores how emotions, motivation, and values shape engagement and resilience, informing both teaching and institutional student experience initiatives.

References

Atherton, P., Topham, L., & Khan, W. (2024). AI and student feedback. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Spain, 79-88. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2024.0042

Bhabha, H. (2012). The Location of Culture (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

Henderson, M., Ryan, T., & Phillips, M. (2019). The challenges of feedback in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1237–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1599815

Kleemola, K., Toom, A., Hyytinen, H., Tuononen, T., Karacay, I., Kroezen, T., Kogan, I., & Alieva, A. (2025). Exploring intersectional inequalities in students’ sense of belonging in education across educational pathways and across educational contexts. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1502115. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1502115

Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

Nichols, S., & Stahl, G. (2019). Intersectionality in higher education research: A systematic literature review. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(6), 1255–1268. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1638348

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976

Williamson, J. (2026). Principles of AI use in marking. Ofqual. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/principles-of-ai-use-in-marking/principles-of-ai-use-in-marking

Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: a systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538

Downloads

Published

25-06-2026

How to Cite

Peiris, M. (2026). AI, affective development, and the ‘third space’ of learning. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, (40). https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi40.1983

Issue

No. 40 (2026)

Section

Opinion Pieces

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).