Which Feedback Works for Whom? Differential Effects of LLM-Generated Feedback Elements Across Learner Profiles

Large language models (LLMs) show promise for automatically generating feedback in education settings. However, it remains unclear how specific feedback elements, such as tone and information coverage, contribute to learning outcomes and learner acceptance, particularly across learners with different personality traits. In this study, we define six feedback elements and generate feedback for multiple-choice biology questions using GPT-5. We conduct a learning experiment with 321 first-year high school students and evaluate feedback effectiveness using two learning outcomes measures and subjective evaluations across six criteria. We further analyze differences in how feedback acceptance varies across learners based on Big Five personality traits. Our results show that effective feedback elements share common patterns supporting learning outcomes, while learners' subjective preferences differ across personality-based clusters. These findings highlight the importance of selecting and adapting feedback elements according to learners' personality traits when we design LLM-generated feedback, and provide practical implications for personalized feedback design in education.

Are Checklists Really Useful for Automatic Evaluation of Generative Tasks?

Automatic evaluation of generative tasks using large language models faces challenges due to ambiguous criteria. Although automatic checklist generation is a potentially promising approach, its usefulness remains underexplored. We investigate whether checklists should be used for all questions or selectively, generate them using six methods, evaluate their effectiveness across eight model sizes, and identify checklist items that correlate with human evaluations. Through experiments on pairwise comparison and direct scoring tasks, we find that selective checklist use tends to improve evaluation performance in pairwise settings, while its benefits are less consistent in direct scoring. Our analysis also shows that even checklist items with low correlation to human scores often reflect human-written criteria, indicating potential inconsistencies in human evaluation. These findings highlight the need to more clearly define objective evaluation criteria to guide both human and automatic evaluations. \footnote{Our code is available at~https://github.com/momo0817/checklist-effectiveness-study

Automatic Feedback Generation for Short Answer Questions using Answer Diagnostic Graphs

Short-reading comprehension questions help students understand text structure but lack effective feedback. Students struggle to identify and correct errors, while manual feedback creation is labor-intensive. This highlights the need for automated feedback linking responses to a scoring rubric for deeper comprehension. Despite advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP), research has focused on automatic grading, with limited work on feedback generation. To address this, we propose a system that generates feedback for student responses. Our contributions are twofold. First, we introduce the first system for feedback on short-answer reading comprehension. These answers are derived from the text, requiring structural understanding. We propose an "answer diagnosis graph," integrating the text's logical structure with feedback templates. Using this graph and NLP techniques, we estimate students' comprehension and generate targeted feedback. Second, we evaluate our feedback through an experiment with Japanese high school students (n=39). They answered two 70-80 word questions and were divided into two groups with minimal academic differences. One received a model answer, the other system-generated feedback. Both re-answered the questions, and we compared score changes. A questionnaire assessed perceptions and motivation. Results showed no significant score improvement between groups, but system-generated feedback helped students identify errors and key points in the text. It also significantly increased motivation. However, further refinement is needed to enhance text structure understanding.