Formative feedback is widely recognized as one of the most effective drivers of student learning, yet it remains difficult to implement equitably at scale. In large or low-resource courses, instructors often lack the time, staffing, and bandwidth required to review and respond to every student reflection, creating gaps in support precisely where learners would benefit most. This paper presents a theory-grounded system that uses five coordinated role-based LLM agents (Evaluator, Equity Monitor, Metacognitive Coach, Aggregator, and Reflexion Reviewer) to score learner reflections with a shared rubric and to generate short, bias-aware, learner-facing comments. The agents first produce structured rubric scores, then check for potentially biased or exclusionary language, add metacognitive prompts that invite students to think about their own thinking, and finally compose a concise feedback message of at most 120 words. The system includes simple fairness checks that compare scoring error across lower and higher scoring learners, enabling instructors to monitor and bound disparities in accuracy. We evaluate the pipeline in a 12-session AI literacy program with adult learners. In this setting, the system produces rubric scores that approach expert-level agreement, and trained graders rate the AI-generated comments as helpful, empathetic, and well aligned with instructional goals. Taken together, these results show that multi-agent LLM systems can deliver equitable, high-quality formative feedback at a scale and speed that would be impossible for human graders alone. More broadly, the work points toward a future where feedback-rich learning becomes feasible for any course size or context, advancing long-standing goals of equity, access, and instructional capacity in education.

With an increasing focus in STEM education on critical thinking skills, science writing plays an ever more important role in curricula that stress inquiry skills. A recently published dataset of two sets of college level lab reports from an inquiry-based physics curriculum relies on analytic assessment rubrics that utilize multiple dimensions, specifying subject matter knowledge and general components of good explanations. Each analytic dimension is assessed on a 6-point scale, to provide detailed feedback to students that can help them improve their science writing skills. Manual assessment can be slow, and difficult to calibrate for consistency across all students in large classes. While much work exists on automated assessment of open-ended questions in STEM subjects, there has been far less work on long-form writing such as lab reports. We present an end-to-end neural architecture that has separate verifier and assessment modules, inspired by approaches to Open Domain Question Answering (OpenQA). VerAs first verifies whether a report contains any content relevant to a given rubric dimension, and if so, assesses the relevant sentences. On the lab reports, VerAs outperforms multiple baselines based on OpenQA systems or Automated Essay Scoring (AES). VerAs also performs well on an analytic rubric for middle school physics essays.