Generative AI and large language models hold great promise in enhancing programming education by generating individualized feedback and hints for learners. Recent works have primarily focused on improving the quality of generated feedback to achieve human tutors' quality.

This paper introduces the first publicly available dataset for Automatic Essay Scoring (AES) and feedback generation in Basque, targeting the CEFR C1 proficiency level. The dataset comprises 3,200 essays from HABE, each annotated by expert evaluators with criterion specific scores covering correctness, richness, coherence, cohesion, and task alignment enriched with detailed feedback and error examples. We fine-tune open-source models, including RoBERTa-EusCrawl and Latxa 8B/70B, for both scoring and explanation generation. Our experiments show that encoder models remain highly reliable for AES, while supervised fine-tuning (SFT) of Latxa significantly enhances performance, surpassing state-of-the-art (SoTA) closed-source systems such as GPT-5 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 in scoring consistency and feedback quality. We also propose a novel evaluation methodology for assessing feedback generation, combining automatic consistency metrics with expert-based validation of extracted learner errors. Results demonstrate that the fine-tuned Latxa model produces criterion-aligned, pedagogically meaningful feedback and identifies a wider range of error types than proprietary models. This resource and benchmark establish a foundation for transparent, reproducible, and educationally grounded NLP research in low-resource languages such as Basque.

Automated Essay Scoring (AES) and Automatic Essay Feedback (AEF) systems aim to reduce the workload of human raters in educational assessment. However, most existing systems prioritize numerical scoring accuracy over feedback quality and are primarily evaluated on pre-secondary school level writing. This paper presents Multi-Agent Argumentation and Grammar Integrated Critiquer (MAGIC), a framework using five specialized agents to evaluate prompt adherence, persuasiveness, organization, vocabulary, and grammar for both holistic scoring and detailed feedback generation. To support evaluation at the college level, we collated a dataset of Graduate Record Examination (GRE) practice essays with expert-evaluated scores and feedback. MAGIC achieves substantial to near-perfect scoring agreement with humans on the GRE data, outperforming baseline LLM models while providing enhanced interpretability through its multi-agent approach. We also compare MAGIC's feedback generation capabilities against ground truth human feedback and baseline models, finding that MAGIC achieves strong feedback quality and naturalness.

Effective feedback is essential for student learning but is time-intensive for teachers. We present LearnLens, a modular, LLM-based system that generates personalised, curriculum-aligned feedback in science education. LearnLens comprises three components: (1) an error-aware assessment module that captures nuanced reasoning errors; (2) a curriculum-grounded generation module that uses a structured, topic-linked memory chain rather than traditional similarity-based retrieval, improving relevance and reducing noise; and (3) an educator-in-the-loop interface for customisation and oversight. LearnLens addresses key challenges in existing systems, offering scalable, high-quality feedback that empowers both teachers and students.

Generative AI and large language models hold great promise in enhancing programming education by generating individualized feedback and hints for learners. Recent works have primarily focused on improving the quality of generated feedback to achieve human tutors' quality.

Automated feedback generation has the potential to enhance students' learning progress by providing timely and targeted feedback. Moreover, it can assist teachers in optimizing their time, allowing them to focus on more strategic and personalized aspects of teaching. To generate high-quality, information-rich formative feedback, it is essential first to extract relevant indicators, as these serve as the foundation upon which the feedback is constructed. Teachers often employ feedback criteria grids composed of various indicators that they evaluate systematically. This study examines the initial phase of extracting such indicators from students' submissions of a language learning course using the large language model Llama 3.1. Accordingly, the alignment between indicators generated by the LLM and human ratings across various feedback criteria is investigated. The findings demonstrate statistically significant strong correlations, even in cases involving unanticipated combinations of indicators and criteria. The methodology employed in this paper offers a promising foundation for extracting indicators from students' submissions using LLMs. Such indicators can potentially be utilized to auto-generate explainable and transparent formative feedback in future research.

In English education tutoring, teacher feedback is essential for guiding students. Recently, AI-based tutoring systems have emerged to assist teachers; however, these systems require high-quality and large-scale teacher feedback data, which is both time-consuming and costly to generate manually. In this study, we propose FEAT, a cost-effective framework for generating teacher feedback, and have constructed three complementary datasets: (1) DIRECT-Manual (DM), where both humans and large language models (LLMs) collaboratively generate high-quality teacher feedback, albeit at a higher cost; (2) DIRECT-Generated (DG), an LLM-only generated, cost-effective dataset with lower quality;, and (3) DIRECT-Augmented (DA), primarily based on DG with a small portion of DM added to enhance quality while maintaining cost-efficiency. Experimental results showed that incorporating a small portion of DM (5-10%) into DG leads to superior performance compared to using 100% DM alone.

Recent advances in natural language processing (NLP) have contributed to the development of automated writing evaluation (AWE) systems that can correct grammatical errors. However, while these systems are effective at improving text, they are not optimally designed for language learning. They favor direct revisions, often with a click-to-fix functionality that can be applied without considering the reason for the correction. Meanwhile, depending on the error type, learners may benefit most from simple explanations and strategically indirect hints, especially on generalizable grammatical rules. To support the generation of such feedback, we introduce an annotation framework that models each error's error type and generalizability. For error type classification, we introduce a typology focused on inferring learners' knowledge gaps by connecting their errors to specific grammatical patterns. Following this framework, we collect a dataset of annotated learner errors and corresponding human-written feedback comments, each labeled as a direct correction or hint. With this data, we evaluate keyword-guided, keyword-free, and template-guided methods of generating feedback using large language models (LLMs). Human teachers examined each system's outputs, assessing them on grounds including relevance, factuality, and comprehensibility. We report on the development of the dataset and the comparative performance of the systems investigated.