Understanding Teacher Revisions of Large Language Model-Generated Feedback

Conrad Borchers, Luiz Rodrigues, Newarney Torrezão da Costa, Cleon Xavier, Rafael Ferreira Mello · Mar 29, 2026 · Citations: 0

Coding Critique Edit Rlaif Or Synthetic Feedback

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly generate formative feedback for students, yet little is known about how teachers revise this feedback before it reaches learners. Teachers' revisions shape what students receive, making revision practices central to evaluating AI classroom tools. We analyze a dataset of 1,349 instances of AI-generated feedback and corresponding teacher-edited explanations from 117 teachers. We examine (i) textual characteristics associated with teacher revisions, (ii) whether revision decisions can be predicted from the AI feedback text, and (iii) how revisions change the pedagogical type of feedback delivered. First, we find that teachers accept AI feedback without modification in about 80% of cases, while edited feedback tends to be significantly longer and subsequently shortened by teachers. Editing behavior varies substantially across teachers: about 50% never edit AI feedback, and only about 10% edit more than two-thirds of feedback instances. Second, machine learning models trained only on the AI feedback text as input features, using sentence embeddings, achieve fair performance in identifying which feedback will be revised (AUC=0.75). Third, qualitative coding shows that when revisions occur, teachers often simplify AI-generated feedback, shifting it away from high-information explanations toward more concise, corrective forms. Together, these findings characterize how teachers engage with AI-generated feedback in practice and highlight opportunities to design feedback systems that better align with teacher priorities while reducing unnecessary editing effort.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

40/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.