Exposía is the first public dataset linking academic writing and feedback in higher education, comprising student research project proposals, peer and instructor comments, and free-text reviews collected from a Computer Science course. It includes human assessment scores based on a fine‑grained, pedagogically‑grounded schema for both writing and feedback. The dataset is used to benchmark large language models on automated scoring of proposals and student reviews, revealing that different LLMs excel at each task and that closed‑source models outperform open‑weight ones, while a multi‑aspect prompting strategy proves most effective for classroom deployment.
By Dennis Zyska, Alla Rozovskaya, Ilia Kuznetsov, Iryna Gurevych
arXiv:2607. 00274v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Effective writing feedback is among the strongest drivers of student learning, yet producing it at scale is labor-intensive.
By Shayan Peyghambari Oskoui, Norah Almousa, Zhaoyi Joey Hou, Carolina Gustafson, Gayle Rogers, Raquel Coelho, Diane Litman, Xiang Lorraine Li
The paper "Limits of LLM Text Detectors in Education" argues that existing LLM‑generated text detectors assume a binary human/LLM distinction, which fails to capture realistic student‑AI collaboration. It introduces a contribution‑aware evaluation framework with eight student contribution levels and presents GEDE, a benchmark of over 900 human‑written and 12,500 generated essays across 886 tasks. Using GEDE, the authors evaluate four detection methods and find that most detectors perform poorly on intermediate contribution levels, especially LLM‑assisted revisions, raising concerns about false accusations.
By Lukas Gehring, Benjamin Paa{\ss}en
arXiv:2605. 05598v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The proliferation of large language models (LLMs) in educational settings has paradoxically undermined the cognitive processes they purport to support.
By Ran Bi, Shiyao Wei, Yuanyiyi Zhou
arXiv:2608. 25826v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A recent line of synthetic-data work reconstructs the thinking behind existing text rather than rewriting the text itself, but it operates on short web passages, recovers only local thoughts, and leaves the structure of whole documents untouched.
By Qiankai Xu, Qiguang Chen, Zixin Su, Wenhao Huang, Yue Gao, Jiaheng Liu, Ge Zhang
arXiv:2607. 15829v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated essay scoring (AES) enables scalable assessment and timely feedback but remains challenged by transformer input-length limitations, which can cause information loss when processing long essays.
By Haowei Hua
arXiv:2606. 00040v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As Generative AI (GenAI) becomes integral to education, fostering GenAI literacy is critical.
By Angxuan Chen, Jiyou Jia
arXiv:2606. 06481v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI writing assistants become increasingly integrated into real-world drafting and revision workflows, many documents are no longer purely human-written or AI-generated, but instead result from progressive human-AI co-editing.
By Sondos Mahmoud Bsharat, Jiacheng Liu, Xiaohan Zhao, Tianjun Yao, Xinyi Shang, Yi Tang, Jiacheng Cui, Ahmed Elhagry, Salwa K. Al Khatib, Hao Li, Salman Khan, Zhiqiang Shen
The paper introduces SWIM, a task that frames student writing simulation as proficiency‑conditioned essay generation. It evaluates prompting, supervised fine‑tuning, and reinforcement learning for aligning generated essays with student proficiency profiles, using automated essay scoring as a metric. Results show that prompting alone offers limited control, while supervised fine‑tuning and reinforcement learning significantly improve alignment across content, lexical, grammatical, and organizational traits, though low‑proficiency writing remains difficult to replicate.
By Heejin Do, Jakub Kontak, Mrinmaya Sachan
A recent line of synthetic-data work reconstructs the thinking behind existing text rather than rewriting the text itself, but it operates on short web passages, recovers only local thoughts, and leav...
arXiv:2607. 14524v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This study presents WrAFT, a Writing Assessment and Feedback Tool, that delivers both accurate and reliable scores and effective comprehensive feedback to argumentative essays.
By Adnan Labib, Yixuan Huang, Jiahui Wu, John Maurice Gayed, Zheng Yuan, Qiao Wang
arXiv:2608. 12351v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has challenged the validity of unsupervised online assessment, especially in technical subjects where plausible answers can be produced with little effort.
By Riasat Islam (School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom), Thomas Roelleke (School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom)