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
arXiv:2607. 05571v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models are increasingly explored as AI tutors, yet deploying them in K-12 settings raises concerns around privacy, cost, and reliance on proprietary models.
By H. Chad Lane, Bryson Kageler
arXiv:2606. 12422v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The integration of large language models (LLMs) into educational assessment represents a transformative shift in classroom grading practices.
By Zewei Tian, Alex Liu, Lief Esbenshade, Michael Xiao, Zachary Zhang, Yulia L\'apicus, Thomas Han, Kevin He, Min Sun
The paper examines whether state‑of‑the‑art large language models (LLMs) produce feedback that aligns with expert teachers’ pedagogical practices, focusing on feedback type and adaptivity. Using a refined taxonomy of seven feedback focus types, the authors annotate and compare teacher and LLM‑generated feedback from three university writing courses, creating the FeedType benchmark. Their analysis shows that while most LLMs cover many feedback types, they do not match teachers’ distribution patterns or adaptive behavior across draft stages and student performance levels.
By Norah Almousa, Shayan Peyghambari Oskoui, Raquel Coelho, Gayle Rogers, Xiang Lorraine Li, Diane Litman
The study explores how undergraduate computing students in Saudi Arabia perceive AI‑generated writing feedback when they are explicitly told that ChatGPT, not a human instructor, produced the score and comments. Through qualitative reflections, four themes emerged: students found the feedback useful for surface‑level revisions, recognized AI’s contextual and pedagogical limits, trusted the feedback conditionally—separating its utility from its authority—and reaffirmed the human instructor’s role as the ultimate grading authority. The findings highlight a clear distinction students make between feedback usefulness and evaluative authority, treating them as separate judgments rather than opposing ends of a single approval scale.
By Rayed AlGhamdi