Nejla Yuruk

Xin Xia, Nejla Yuruk, Yun Wang et al.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) offers scalable support for formative feedback, yet most AI-generated feedback relies on task-specific rubrics authored by domain experts. While effective, rubric authoring is time-consuming and limits scalability across instructional contexts. Learning progressions (LP) provide a theoretically grounded representation of students' developing understanding and may offer an alternative solution. This study examines whether an LP-driven rubric generation pipeline can produce AI-generated feedback comparable in quality to feedback guided by expert-authored task rubrics. We analyzed AI-generated feedback for written scientific explanations produced by 207 middle school students in a chemistry task. Two pipelines were compared: (a) feedback guided by a human expert-designed, task-specific rubric, and (b) feedback guided by a task-specific rubric automatically derived from a learning progression prior to grading and feedback generation. Two human coders evaluated feedback quality using a multi-dimensional rubric assessing Clarity, Accuracy, Relevance, Engagement and Motivation, and Reflectiveness (10 sub-dimensions). Inter-rater reliability was high, with percent agreement ranging from 89% to 100% and Cohen's kappa values for estimable dimensions (kappa = .66 to .88). Paired t-tests revealed no statistically significant differences between the two pipelines for Clarity (t1 = 0.00, p1 = 1.000; t2 = 0.84, p2 = .399), Relevance (t1 = 0.28, p1 = .782; t2 = -0.58, p2 = .565), Engagement and Motivation (t1 = 0.50, p1 = .618; t2 = -0.58, p2 = .565), or Reflectiveness (t = -0.45, p = .656). These findings suggest that the LP-driven rubric pipeline can serve as an alternative solution.

Arne Bewersdorff, Nejla Yuruk, Xiaoming Zhai

In science education, students frequently construct hand-drawn visual models of scientific phenomena. These drawings rely on a visual structure where information is encoded through visual objects, their attributes, and relationships. Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used to generate feedback on students' hand-drawn scientific models. However, the validity of such feedback depends on whether model claims are grounded in the specific visual evidence of the student drawing. This study uncovers grounding failures, consistent with modal decoupling, in off-the-shelf MLLM feedback, where outputs remain pedagogically plausible in form while contradicting the drawing or treating depicted elements as missing. Using N = 150 middle school drawings from a kinetic molecular theory unit spanning five modeling tasks and three competence levels, we generated N = 300 feedback instances with GPT-5.1. All outputs were coded for four grounding error types: object mismatch, attribute mismatch, relation mismatch, and false absence. Grounding failures were common: 41.3% of feedback instances contained at least one error. An inventory-list-first workflow reduced several error categories and lowered the overall error rate, but it did not resolve the underlying limitation: approximately one in three outputs remained flawed, with false absence as the dominant failure mode. Moreover, feedback that appears visually grounded offered little diagnostic value for identifying invalid instances. The findings indicate that modal decoupling is a substantial limitation and that valid feedback will require grounding mechanisms beyond common prompting strategies.