Using Learning Progressions to Guide AI Feedback for Science Learning

Feedback processes strongly influence student learning, yet their educational value depends on addressing two distinct challenges: providing high-quality, timely, and individualised feedback at scale, and supporting students to interpret, evaluate, and act on that feedback productively. Generative AI offers a credible means of addressing the provision challenge, but students' uptake of AI-generated feedback remains limited. We conducted a large-scale quasi-experimental sequential cohort study comparing three AI-mediated feedback workflows across 13,037 students and 51,296 student-authored resources. In Directed Feedback (n = 3,723), students received AI-generated feedback comments without structured support. In Self-Directed Feedback (n = 3,951), students could initiate optional AI-supported dialogue. In Enacted Feedback (n = 5,363), students were prompted to select feedback suggestions, evaluate their relevance, and engage in targeted AI-supported dialogue anchored to those selections. Enacted Feedback was associated with significantly higher uptake of AI-generated feedback, with an estimated probability of 26.2%, compared with 14.1% for Directed Feedback and 0.1% for Self-Directed Feedback. It was also associated with significantly higher self-assessment confidence and submitted-work quality than both comparison conditions. These findings suggest that the educational value of AI-generated feedback depends not only on the quality of feedback comments, but also on workflows that actively structure students' enactment of feedback literacy processes. The results have implications for the design of AI feedback systems that position learners as active participants in judgement, dialogue, and improvement rather than passive recipients of comments. Overall findings show that AI access alone is insufficient; purposeful workflow design is central to productive feedback use.

Instance-specific rubrics are common in AI benchmarks where reliable evaluation requires specific expert knowledge. This approach is difficult to scale, prompting research into the generation of rubrics with large language models (LLMs). However, even when expert rubrics are available as references, it is unclear how to productively evaluate the quality of generated rubrics at scale. In this paper, we introduce a method for the evaluation of rubric generation, which we call Interventional Transfer (IT), based on the idea that two rubrics are similar if they move together when a response is perturbed to pass/fail one of them. In contrast to existing approaches for evaluation of rubric generation, we argue that different forms of interventional transfer can be used to evaluate the utility of generated rubrics for different tasks. For instance, we apply this approach in a case study on HealthBench, where we demonstrate an asymmetry in rubrics generated by Qwen3.8-27B, Deepseek-V4-Flash, and Opus-5, used to evaluate responses from GPT-5.6-Terra. Perturbations that degrade responses according to the generated/expert rubric transfer into lower scores on the corresponding expert/generated rubric, but perturbations that improve on one rubric do not reliably transfer into higher scores on the other. We argue that this finding has implications for the usage of LLM-generated rubrics for performance monitoring and hill-climbing. We contrast our approach with existing approaches for rubric evaluation, which do not surface the same asymmetry that we observe.

The need to evaluate instructional materials for K-12 science education has become increasingly important, as more educators use generative AI to create instructional materials. However, the review of instructional materials is time-consuming, expertise-intensive, and difficult to scale, motivating interest in automated evaluation approaches. While large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on general evaluation tasks, their performance and reliability on instructional materials remain unclear. To address this gap, we formulate Automatic Instructional Materials Evaluation (AIME) as a generative AI task that predicts scores and evidence using the rubric designed by the educator. We create a benchmark dataset and develop baseline models for AIME. First, we curate the first AIME dataset, SciEval, consisting of instructional materials annotated with pedagogy-aligned evaluation scores and evidence-based rationales. Expert annotations achieve high inter-rater reliability, resulting in a dataset of 273 lesson-level instructional materials evaluated across 13 criteria (N=3549) using the EQuIP rubric. Second, we test mainstream LLMs (GPT, Gemini, Llama, and Qwen) on SciEval and find that none achieve strong performance. Then we fine-tune Qwen3 on SciEval. Results on a held-out test set show that domain-aligned fine-tuning can achieve up to 11 percent performance gains, highlighting the importance of domain-specific fine-tuning for AIME and facilitating the use of LLMs in other educational tasks.