pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.06271 · v1 · pith:JFT6NGQ2new · submitted 2026-06-04 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.HC

FOXGLOVE: Understanding Goal-Oriented and Anchored Writing Feedback from Experts and LLMs on Argumentative Essays

Yijun Liu , Yifan Song , John Gallagher , Sarah Sterman , Tal August This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 01:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.HC
keywords writing feedbackLLMsargumentative essaysgoal-oriented feedbackanchored feedbackexpert comparisonfeedback quality
0
0 comments X

The pith

Instructors and LLMs distribute feedback similarly across goals and essay positions but diverge on the specific sentences targeted and on feedback style.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper creates a dataset called FOXGLOVE with 696 instructor comments and 1644 LLM comments on 69 argumentative essays. It compares them on goal-orientation, anchoring to specific sentences, and prioritization. Instructors and LLMs show similar distributions across these dimensions yet select different sentences for comments. LLMs produce more complex feedback with fewer questions and receive higher quality ratings, largely because their comments are longer.

Core claim

Using the FOXGLOVE dataset of paired expert and LLM feedback, the authors establish that while human instructors and frontier LLMs allocate feedback comments similarly across writing goals and positions in the essay, they select different individual sentences for commentary. Models generate more complex comments and ask fewer questions, and their feedback scores higher on quality ratings from instructors, an advantage largely explained by greater comment length.

What carries the argument

The FOXGLOVE dataset of goal-oriented and anchored feedback comments, used to compare distribution, specificity, complexity, and quality between instructors and LLMs.

If this is right

  • Feedback systems can use LLMs to cover similar goal distributions as humans.
  • Anchoring remains a point of divergence requiring human oversight or better prompting.
  • LLM comments tend toward greater complexity and fewer questions than instructor comments.
  • Quality advantages of LLM feedback largely trace to comment length rather than other factors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future tools might combine LLM volume with human precision on sentence selection.
  • Length as a quality factor suggests prompts could be adjusted to match human brevity if desired.
  • This comparison framework could extend to other writing genres or feedback types.

Load-bearing premise

The shared prompting protocol creates LLM feedback that is comparable in intent and utility to feedback from trained instructors.

What would settle it

A study measuring actual student revision outcomes after receiving instructor versus LLM feedback would show whether the quality ratings translate to better revisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.06271 by John Gallagher, Sarah Sterman, Tal August, Yifan Song, Yijun Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An illustrative essay showing the structure of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Sentence-span overlap between comment pairs, conditioned on both the same essay and the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Highlight percentage by position for LLMs and instructor per goal. LLMs and instructor generally agree [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Feedback Giver interface on Google Docs, showing global and span-level comments on a student [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Prompt for LLM Feedback Generation adapted from human tutor instructions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Rater interface for evaluating feedback quality. The left panel displays the student essay with the feedback [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate writing feedback, there remains no systematic comparison of LLM and expert feedback on the dimensions that writing research identifies as central to revision: goal-orientation, anchoring to specific sentences, and prioritization. We introduce FOXGLOVE, a dataset of 696 feedback comments written by trained writing instructors on 69 twelfth-grade argumentative essays, paired with 1,644 comments generated from four frontier LLMs under a shared protocol, totaling 2,340 comments. We provide expert quality ratings on a subset of both instructor and LLM comments. We find that instructors and LLMs distribute feedback similarly across goals and essay positions, yet instructors and models diverge on the specific sentences on which to provide feedback. Additionally, we find that models tend to write more complex feedback and use fewer questions than instructors. LLM feedback also receives higher ratings on most dimensions of quality, as rated by instructors, but much of this advantage appears to be attributable to lengthier comments. FOXGLOVE enables systematic comparison of where human and LLM feedback align, diverge, and differ.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the FOXGLOVE dataset comprising 696 feedback comments from trained writing instructors on 69 twelfth-grade argumentative essays, paired with 1,644 comments generated by four frontier LLMs under a shared prompting protocol. It reports that instructors and LLMs show similar distributions of feedback across goals and essay positions but diverge on the specific sentences targeted; LLMs produce more complex feedback with fewer questions; and LLM comments receive higher instructor ratings on most quality dimensions, though much of this is linked to greater comment length.

Significance. If the central empirical comparisons hold after addressing methodological gaps, the dataset offers a reusable benchmark for systematic analysis of goal-oriented and anchored feedback, enabling targeted improvements in LLM writing assistants for education. The work's strength lies in its focus on revision-relevant dimensions (goals, anchoring, prioritization) drawn from writing research rather than generic metrics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (prompting protocol)] Methods section on data collection and prompting: The shared protocol for LLM comment generation is presented without evidence of derivation from or validation against actual instructor rubrics, workflows, or revision goals used by the human experts. This is load-bearing for the central claim of meaningful comparability, as unvalidated prompt structures (e.g., explicit goal lists or sentence-level instructions) could artifactually produce the reported aggregate similarities while driving the observed divergences in specific anchors.
  2. [Results (quality analysis)] Results section on quality ratings: Claims that LLM feedback receives higher ratings on most quality dimensions are presented without statistical tests for significance, inter-rater reliability coefficients, sample-size justification for the rated subset, or explicit controls for length beyond the acknowledgment that length contributes to the advantage. These omissions weaken support for the quality comparison as a core finding.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and introduction: The total comment counts (696 + 1,644) and essay count (69) are stated clearly, but the abstract could briefly note the number of raters or rating dimensions to improve standalone readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which identify key opportunities to improve methodological transparency and statistical support. We respond to each major comment below, indicating planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (prompting protocol)] Methods section on data collection and prompting: The shared protocol for LLM comment generation is presented without evidence of derivation from or validation against actual instructor rubrics, workflows, or revision goals used by the human experts. This is load-bearing for the central claim of meaningful comparability, as unvalidated prompt structures (e.g., explicit goal lists or sentence-level instructions) could artifactually produce the reported aggregate similarities while driving the observed divergences in specific anchors.

    Authors: The prompting protocol was constructed from writing research on goal-oriented and anchored feedback to enable a standardized, comparable generation process across models. It was not derived from or validated against the specific rubrics or workflows of the participating instructors, as the study design prioritizes a general benchmark rather than instructor-specific replication. We agree this limits strong claims of equivalence and will revise the Methods section to detail the protocol's grounding in prior literature, append the full prompts, and explicitly discuss this as a limitation affecting interpretation of divergences in anchoring. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results (quality analysis)] Results section on quality ratings: Claims that LLM feedback receives higher ratings on most quality dimensions are presented without statistical tests for significance, inter-rater reliability coefficients, sample-size justification for the rated subset, or explicit controls for length beyond the acknowledgment that length contributes to the advantage. These omissions weaken support for the quality comparison as a core finding.

    Authors: We accept that the quality analysis requires additional statistical detail. In revision we will add significance tests for rating differences, report inter-rater reliability (or clarify the single-rater process if applicable), justify the rated subset size, and include explicit length-controlled analyses (e.g., regression or matched comparisons). These changes will be incorporated without altering the existing observation that length explains much of the advantage. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical dataset comparison with no derivations or self-referential claims

full rationale

The paper collects instructor feedback, generates LLM feedback under a shared protocol, rates subsets, and compares distributions of goals, anchoring, complexity, and quality. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions derived from inputs, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described structure. All claims reduce to direct measurement rather than any definitional or citation-based reduction. This matches the default case of a self-contained empirical study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical dataset construction and observational comparison paper; contains no mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, or postulated entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5737 in / 1184 out tokens · 42859 ms · 2026-06-28T01:41:54.832847+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    and Ghanney, Yosr and Villeneuve, Alexandre and Dongmo, Jarvis and Ahmed, Meherin and Archibald, Douglas and Jolin-Dahel, Kheira , month = mar, year =

    Allen, Zack van and Forgues-Martel, Sylvie and Venables, Maddie J. and Ghanney, Yosr and Villeneuve, Alexandre and Dongmo, Jarvis and Ahmed, Meherin and Archibald, Douglas and Jolin-Dahel, Kheira , month = mar, year =. Can. doi:10.64898/2026.03.04.26346878 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.64898/2026.03.04.26346878 2026

  2. [2]

    Proceedings of the 2024

    Behzad, Shabnam and Kashefi, Omid and Somasundaran, Swapna , editor =. Proceedings of the 2024. 2024 , pages =. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-short.36 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-short.36 2024

  3. [3]

    Assessing

    Behzad, Shabnam and Kashefi, Omid and Somasundaran, Swapna , editor =. Assessing. Proceedings of the 2024. 2024 , pages =

    2024

  4. [4]

    Beyond Excess and Deficiency: Adaptive Length Bias Mitigation in Reward Models for RLHF

    Bu, Yuyan and Huo, Liangyu and Jing, Yi and Yang, Qing. Beyond Excess and Deficiency: Adaptive Length Bias Mitigation in Reward Models for RLHF. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025. 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-naacl.169

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-naacl.169 2025

  5. [5]

    and Dale, E

    Chall, J.S. and Dale, E. , year =. Readability

  6. [6]

    doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2004.tb01931.x , abstract =

    ETS Research Report Series , author =. doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2004.tb01931.x , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2004.tb01931.x 2004

  7. [7]

    and Trevor, Jonathan and Bly, Sara and Nelson, Les and Cubranic, Davor , month = apr, year =

    Churchill, Elizabeth F. and Trevor, Jonathan and Bly, Sara and Nelson, Les and Cubranic, Davor , month = apr, year =. Anchored conversations: chatting in the context of a document , isbn =. Proceedings of the. doi:10.1145/332040.332475 , language =

    work page doi:10.1145/332040.332475

  8. [8]

    Annotating Errors in English Learners' Written Language Production: Advancing Automated Written Feedback Systems

    Coyne, Steven and Galvan-Sosa, Diana and Spring, Ryan and Guerraoui, Cam \'e lia and Zock, Michael and Sakaguchi, Keisuke and Inui, Kentaro. Annotating Errors in English Learners' Written Language Production: Advancing Automated Written Feedback Systems. Artificial Intelligence in Education. 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Assessing Writing , author =

    A large-scale corpus for assessing written argumentation:. Assessing Writing , author =. 2024 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2024.100865 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asw.2024.100865 2024

  10. [10]

    Fine-Grained Analysis of Propaganda in News Articles

    Da San Martino, Giovanni and Yu, Seunghak and Barr \'o n-Cede \ n o, Alberto and Petrov, Rostislav and Nakov, Preslav. Fine-Grained Analysis of Propaganda in News Articles. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). 2019. d...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1565 2019

  11. [11]

    Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators

    Dubois, Yann and Galambosi, Balázs and Liang, Percy and Hashimoto, Tatsunori B. , month = mar, year =. Length-. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.04475 , abstract =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.04475

  12. [12]

    , volume=

    A new readability yardstick. , volume=. Journal of Applied Psychology , author=. 1948 , pages=. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532 , number=

    work page doi:10.1037/h0057532 1948

  13. [13]

    College Composition and Communication , author =

    A. College Composition and Communication , author =. 1981 , note =. doi:10.2307/356600 , number =

    work page doi:10.2307/356600 1981

  14. [14]

    XDAC : XAI -Driven Detection and Attribution of LLM -Generated News Comments in K orean

    Go, Wooyoung and Kim, Hyoungshick and Oh, Alice and Kim, Yongdae. XDAC : XAI -Driven Detection and Attribution of LLM -Generated News Comments in K orean. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1108

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1108 2025

  15. [15]

    Guerraoui, Camelia and Reisert, Paul and Inoue, Naoya and Mim, Farjana Sultana and Singh, Keshav and Choi, Jungmin and Robbani, Irfan and Naito, Shoichi and Wang, Wenzhi and Inui, Kentaro , editor =. Teach. Proceedings of the 10th. 2023 , pages =. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.argmining-1.3 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.argmining-1.3 2023

  16. [16]

    Expos\'ia: Teaching and Assessment of Academic Writing Skills for Research Project Proposals and Peer Feedback

    Zyska, Dennis and Rozovskaya, Alla and Kuznetsov, Ilia and Gurevych, Iryna , year =. Exposía:. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2601.06536 , abstract =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.06536

  17. [17]

    What do they mean? Questions in academic writing , pages =

    Ken Hyland , url =. What do they mean? Questions in academic writing , pages =. Text & Talk , doi =

  18. [18]

    Discourse Studies , volume =

    Ken Hyland , title =. Discourse Studies , volume =. 2005 , doi =

    2005

  19. [19]

    Jiang, Feng Kevin and Hyland, Ken , journal =. Does. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  20. [20]

    Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , articleno =

    Afrin, Tazin and Kashefi, Omid and Olshefski, Christopher and Litman, Diane and Hwa, Rebecca and Godley, Amanda , title =. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , articleno =. 2021 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445683 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445683 2021

  21. [21]

    2025 , url =

    Khan Academy Annual Report:. 2025 , url =

    2025

  22. [22]

    biometrics , pages=

    The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data , author=. biometrics , pages=. 1977 , publisher=

    1977

  23. [23]

    Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis.NEJM AI, 1(8):AIoa2400196, 2024

    Weixin Liang and Yuhui Zhang and Hancheng Cao and Binglu Wang and Daisy Yi Ding and Xinyu Yang and Kailas Vodrahalli and Siyu He and Daniel Scott Smith and Yian Yin and Daniel A. McFarland and James Zou , title =. NEJM AI , volume =. 2024 , doi =. https://ai.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/AIoa2400196 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1056/aioa2400196 2024

  24. [24]

    Liu, Suqing and Simion, Bogdan and Eaton, Christopher and Liut, Michael , month = dec, year =. A. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.11541 , abstract =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.11541

  25. [25]

    Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , articleno =

    Liu, Yijun and Gallagher, John and Sterman, Sarah and August, Tal , title =. Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , articleno =. 2026 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3772318.3790292 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3772318.3790292 2026

  26. [26]

    Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , articleno =

    Lu, Xinyi and Phyllis Ju, Kexin and Dudley, Mitchell and Sano, Larissa and Wang, Xu , title =. Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , articleno =. 2026 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3772318.3791121 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3772318.3791121 2026

  27. [27]

    Mah, Christopher and Tan, Mei and Phalen, Lena and Sparks, Alexa and Demszky, Dorottya , note =. From. 2025 , shorttitle =. doi:10.26300/P397-2P46 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.26300/p397-2p46 2025

  28. [28]

    Liebenow and Marlene Steinbach and Andrea Horbach and Johanna Fleckenstein , keywords =

    Jennifer Meyer and Thorben Jansen and Ronja Schiller and Lucas W. Liebenow and Marlene Steinbach and Andrea Horbach and Johanna Fleckenstein , keywords =. Using LLMs to bring evidence-based feedback into the classroom: AI-generated feedback increases secondary students’ text revision, motivation, and positive emotions , journal =. 2024 , issn =. doi:https...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100199 2024

  29. [29]

    2026 , keywords =

    IEEE Access , author =. 2026 , keywords =. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3646052 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2025.3646052 2026

  30. [30]

    Computers and Education Open , author =

    Enhancing active learning through collaboration between human teachers and generative. Computers and Education Open , author =. 2024 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100183 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100183 2024

  31. [31]

    Pilan, Ildiko and Lee, John and Yeung, Chak Yan and Webster, Jonathan , editor =. A. Proceedings of the. 2020 , pages =

    2020

  32. [32]

    Help Me Write a Story: Evaluating LLM s' Ability to Generate Writing Feedback

    Rashkin, Hannah and Clark, Elizabeth and Huot, Fantine and Lapata, Mirella. Help Me Write a Story: Evaluating LLM s' Ability to Generate Writing Feedback. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1254

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1254 2025

  33. [33]

    and Choi, Yejin

    Sap, Maarten and Gabriel, Saadia and Qin, Lianhui and Jurafsky, Dan and Smith, Noah A. and Choi, Yejin. Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Language. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2020. doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.486

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.486 2020

  34. [34]

    Review of educational research , volume=

    Focus on formative feedback , author=. Review of educational research , volume=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  35. [35]

    Responding to Student Writing , urldate =

    Nancy Sommers , journal =. Responding to Student Writing , urldate =

  36. [36]

    Learning and Instruction , author =

    Comparing the quality of human and. Learning and Instruction , author =. 2024 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894 2024

  37. [37]

    American Educational Research Journal , volume=

    How readability factors are differentially associated with performance for students of different backgrounds when solving mathematics word problems , author=. American Educational Research Journal , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  38. [38]

    LLM s can Perform Multi-Dimensional Analytic Writing Assessments: A Case Study of L 2 Graduate-Level Academic E nglish Writing

    Wang, Zhengxiang and Makarova, Veronika and Li, Zhi and Kodner, Jordan and Rambow, Owen. LLM s can Perform Multi-Dimensional Analytic Writing Assessments: A Case Study of L 2 Graduate-Level Academic E nglish Writing. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025....

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.423 2025

  39. [39]

    , month = nov, year =

    Weng, Chunhua and Gennari, John H. , month = nov, year =. Asynchronous collaborative writing through annotations , isbn =. Proceedings of the 2004. doi:10.1145/1031607.1031705 , language =

    work page doi:10.1145/1031607.1031705 2004

  40. [40]

    Contemporary Educational Psychology , author =

    From feedback to revisions:. Contemporary Educational Psychology , author =. 2020 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101826 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101826 2020

  41. [41]

    Beyond grammar checking: the impact of

    Zhang, Aoran and Jiang, Chunli , month = jan, year =. Beyond grammar checking: the impact of. Cogent Education , publisher =. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2025.2574333 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1080/2331186x.2025.2574333 2025

  42. [42]

    and Bjerva, Johannes , month = feb, year =

    Zhang, Mike and Dilling, Amalie Pernille and Gondelman, Léon and Lyngdorf, Niels Erik Ruan and Lindsay, Euan D. and Bjerva, Johannes , month = feb, year =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.12927 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.12927

  43. [43]

    Successful classroom deployment of a social document annotation system , isbn =

    Zyto, Sacha and Karger, David and Ackerman, Mark and Mahajan, Sanjoy , month = may, year =. Successful classroom deployment of a social document annotation system , isbn =. Proceedings of the. doi:10.1145/2207676.2208326 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/2207676.2208326

  44. [44]

    2022 , pages =

    Language Resources and Evaluation , author =. 2022 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s10579-021-09567-z , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s10579-021-09567-z 2022