{"resourceId":"uvic-studiosity-trial-final-report-20260130","versions":[{"version":"external-6b418884b46da06fc6084f6a7276ec0eceb910edb1052b2b80cc12e448955bc9","resource":{"id":"uvic-studiosity-trial-final-report-20260130","title":"University of Victoria Studiosity trial: 49 of ~350 students used Writing Feedback; not recommended for general rollout","organization":"University of Victoria, Division of Learning and Teaching Innovation","sector":"Higher education academic support / AI-enabled formative writing feedback","geography":"Canada (University of Victoria, British Columbia)","publishedAt":"Final report PDF dated January 2026 (Fall 2025 pilot)","publicationDate":"2026-01-30","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"University of Victoria Learning and Teaching Innovation","sourceLabel":"Institutional pilot evaluation report","sourceUrl":"https://teachanywhere.uvic.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/4913/2026/01/Studiosity-Trial-Final-Report.pdf","evidenceClass":"independent-research","outcomeClass":"cautionary","topics":["knowledge-work","operating-model","governance-procurement"],"finding":"In a Fall 2025 volunteer pilot across three courses (Commerce, Health Information Science, Education; about 350 students), 49 students used Studiosity's Writing Feedback and 24 used Study Assist at least once. Use clustered around assignment release and due dates and declined over the term. UVic concluded the tool was a poor pedagogical fit for general rollout but may suit writing-intensive courses with required draft–feedback–revision cycles, such as English as an Additional Language courses, when explicitly prescribed rather than optional.","sledRelevance":"Why now: the 30 Sep 2026 Georgia State/NISS post reports strong outcomes for the same platform. UVic's institution-run report is the counterweight: under optional, non-exclusive positioning, uptake was about 14% and episodic. Together they show that adoption design, not the tool, drives exposure.","evidence":"Vendor-supplied application analytics (3 Sep–11 Dec 2025), instructor survey, two short student surveys; not a controlled study; no learning-outcome analysis. Baseline: enrolled population of ~350.","architectureImplications":"Brightspace embed alone did not drive use; analytics captured counts and timing but not engagement quality or outcomes, so institutions need their own outcome linkage.","governanceImplications":"Decide placement (prescribed stage in an assignment vs optional resource) before procurement; UVic recommends against positioning the tool as universal.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Usage data came from the vendor; institutions should secure rights to granular usage data and limit draft retention.","caveats":"Small, self-selected instructor sample; three courses; descriptive only; Canadian context with in-house writing supports; students could use ChatGPT and other tools in two courses, diluting uptake.","streamIds":["student-success"],"roles":{"sales":"The framing point is that uptake decides value. At UVic, an optional, LMS-embedded AI writing tool reached 49 of roughly 350 students, and mostly near deadlines. Use this to qualify a campus: ask where writing is assessed through multiple drafts and whether faculty will prescribe the tool at a specific stage. Sell a targeted course-sequence pilot, not campus-wide seats, and avoid promising adoption that open, optional positioning did not produce here.","engineering":"Engineering's point is that embedding in Brightspace was not enough to drive use. The vendor analytics covered counts and timing but not quality or outcomes. Any proof of value needs institution-owned usage export joined to assignment drafts and grades. Also expect students to use competing GenAI tools when policy permits them, which makes attribution hard. Build measurement for the specific prescribed assignment stage rather than for general availability.","delivery":"Delivery should design adoption into the assignment: a required draft, then feedback, then revision step, with the tool named in the syllabus and its limits stated, as UVic's Education course did. Track the share of enrolled students who use it per stage and the pattern across the term. If uptake stays below a set threshold, stop or retarget. Keep human writing support in place and record faculty effort."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Campuses buying AI writing feedback assume students will use it; optional deployments can see little sustained use.","stakeholders":["Teaching and learning center","Writing and academic skills services","Faculty in writing-intensive courses","Procurement"],"discoveryQuestions":["Which courses require multiple drafts of the same text?","Will faculty prescribe the tool at a defined assignment stage?","What competing GenAI tools are students permitted to use?"],"valueHypothesis":"Targeted, prescribed use in drafting-based courses is more likely to generate sustained engagement than campus-wide optional access.","potentialEngagement":"Targeted pilot in one writing-intensive sequence (for example EAL) with prescribed draft stages and institution-owned usage metrics.","unsupportedClaims":["Campus-wide adoption","Learning gains (not measured)","Integrity benefits"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Formative writing feedback in courses with required iterative drafting.","architectureIntegration":"LMS embed plus institution-owned export of per-stage usage linked to assignment submissions.","prerequisites":["Contractual access to granular usage data","Assignment-stage tagging in the LMS"],"constraints":["Vendor analytics lack quality and outcome measures","Concurrent use of other GenAI tools"],"security":"Limit draft retention and secure institutional rights to usage data.","proofOfValue":["Per-stage uptake among enrolled students","Draft-to-draft change on a blind sample","Comparison with prior-year grade distributions"]},"delivery":{"work":"Redesign target assignments with a prescribed feedback stage, update syllabi, and monitor uptake termly.","dependencies":["Faculty assignment redesign","Syllabus statements on tool scope"],"ownership":"Teaching and learning center with course instructors.","skillsAdoption":"Students are taught when AI feedback helps and when to seek disciplinary or human feedback.","governanceCheckpoints":["Placement decision before purchase","Mid-term uptake review","Retarget-or-stop decision at term end"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Defined minimum share of enrolled students using the prescribed stage","Sustained use beyond the first assignment","Instructor-reported fit per course"],"risks":["Low uptake wasting license spend","Deadline-only tactical use","Displacement of human writing support"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-10-05T03:17:44Z","enrichedAt":"2026-10-05T03:21:28Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Possible targeted value for EAL learners; low general uptake means equity benefits are not automatic.","procurementImplications":"Price and scope pilots by targeted course, not campus-wide seats; require usage and outcome data access in contract.","operatingModelImplications":"Use targeted deployment in writing-intensive sequences with explicit draft stages and keep human writing support alongside it.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://teachanywhere.uvic.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/4913/2026/01/Studiosity-Trial-Final-Report.pdf","referenceExcerpt":"It was found that there was very little engagement in the pilot program.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}