A Durability and Cross-Language Transfer Benchmark for a Validated Teaching-Feedback Classification Protocol

Educational aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) can support course improvement, but public aspect-labeled student feedback remains scarce because educational reviews are private, institution-specific, and expensive to annotate. This study introduces a controlled synthetic benchmark for educational ABSA built from 10,000 synthetic course reviews with explicit train-validation-test splits and a 20-aspect pedagogical schema spanning instructional quality, assessment and course management, learning demand, learning environment, and engagement. The corpus is generated with sampled target labels, sampled nuance attributes, and a realism-tuned prompt refined through a three-cycle judge-editor procedure. On the resulting benchmark, local baselines with TF-IDF, two-step transformers, and joint encoders show that the task is nontrivial; the strongest untuned model, BERT, reaches a held-out detection micro-F1 of 0.2760, while a modest lower-rate BERT schedule improves this to 0.2930. Full-test GPT-based inference with gpt-5.2 reaches 0.2519 micro-F1 in zero-shot mode and 0.2501 with retrieval-based few-shot prompting, placing batch inference above the classical baseline and close to the compact joint encoders. A conservative external evaluation on 2,829 mapped student-feedback reviews from Herath et al. yields a micro-F1 of 0.4593 for BERT on a 9-aspect overlap, indicating partial synthetic-to-real transfer. Realism and faithfulness analyses are reported as generator diagnostics that clarify how the benchmark was stabilized and where label noise remains. The study therefore contributes a synthetic educational ABSA corpus, a documented generation procedure, and a reproducible benchmark setting for a domain in which public labeled data remain difficult to obtain.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for education requires measuring how models teach, not only what they know. Existing benchmarks emphasize domain-general correctness or depend on manually designed rubrics that scale poorly to long-tail pedagogical scenarios. We introduce Elmes*, an end-to-end framework for constructing, refining, and applying fine-grained scenario-specific rubrics. Elmes* combines a declarative multi-agent engine for teacher--student--judge interactions with SceneGen, a self-evolving module that co-optimizes evaluation criteria and test data from expert-defined pedagogical dimensions. Using Elmes*, we build Edu-330, covering 330 scenarios across 11 subjects, 3 grade bands, and 10 task types, with over 1{,}000 second-level indicators. Experiments on Edu-330 and four expert-authored gold-standard scenarios show that educational capability is multidimensional: top-tier LLMs differ mainly in creativity and values integration, knowledge-strong models may fail at Socratic scaffolding, and the education-specialized InnoSpark achieves the best human-evaluated average score. LLM judges preserve human-comparable rankings with much lower scoring variance, but exhibit judge-specific biases such as self-preference. Ablations show that expert-scored few-shot anchoring improves human--LLM alignment, while reasoning enforcement and greedy decoding are model-dependent. Elmes* thus provides scalable diagnostic infrastructure for pedagogically grounded LLM evaluation.

We investigate whether state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) generate feedback that reflects the pedagogical practices of expert teachers in terms of feedback focus and adaptivity. Previous evaluation efforts have examined feedback characteristics, its impact on learning, and its target, yet the focus of feedback and its adaptivity remains largely overlooked. To bridge this gap, we adopt and refine Narciss's taxonomy into seven feedback focus types to annotate teacher and LLM-generated feedback across three university writing courses. We release FeedType, a benchmark containing annotated teacher and LLM feedback from six LLMs under three prompting strategies. We assess the coverage and distribution of feedback focus types, and examine whether LLMs adapt their feedback across draft stages and student performance levels as an expert instructor does. Our findings show that while most LLMs cover most feedback focus types, they fail to reflect teacher feedback distributions and show varying levels of adaptivity, with none matching the teachers' adaptive behavior. We believe FeedType will support future research on pedagogical alignment in LLM feedback generation.