mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Comparative Study of Student Perspectives on Technical Writing Feedback Quality: Evaluating LLMs, SLMs, and Humans in Computer Science Topics

arXiv 2601.11541 ↗First posted 1 Dec 2025cs.HC cs.AI cs.CYcited by 1

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment

Abstract (arXiv)

To address the scalability of feedback in computer science while mitigating the privacy and cost limitations of commercial Large Language Models (LLMs), this study evaluates a locally hosted Small Language Model (SLM). We deployed a quantized Llama-3.1, GPT-4, and human instructors across introductory programming (N=176), operating systems (N=80), and a writing seminar (N=7). Mixed-methods analysis of student perceptions reveals that while the local SLM matched commercial LLMs and was rated higher by students for readability and actionability in technical courses, human feedback remained more favoured for highly specialized writing tasks. We demonstrate that local SLMs offer a privacy-preserving, zero-marginal-cost alternative for foundational feedback, supporting a tiered pedagogical framework where AI handles structural guidance while instructors focus on high-level conceptual scaffolding.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 10 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Dec 2025.

Builds on

10 of 37 references.

References · 10

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  2. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  3. 2023The Robots are Here: Navigating the Generative AI Revolution in Computing Educationcited by 85
  4. 2024CodeAid: Evaluating a Classroom Deployment of an LLM-based Programming Assistant that Balances Student and Educator Needscited by 81
  5. 2023Students' Voices on Generative AI: Perceptions, Benefits, and Challenges in Higher Educationcited by 41
  6. 2023Impact of Guidance and Interaction Strategies for LLM Use on Learner Performance and Perceptioncited by 19
  7. 2024Desirable Characteristics for AI Teaching Assistants in Programming Educationcited by 16
  8. 2022Automated Feedback Generation for Competition-Level Codecited by 7
  9. 2022Impact of combining human and analytics feedback on students' engagement with, and performance in, reflective writing taskscited by 4
  10. 2025Humanizing Automated Programming Feedback: Fine-Tuning Generative Models with Student-Written Feedbackcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026A Classroom Study of LLM-Generated Feedback Intervention in Introductory Programming
  2. 2023Students' Perceptions and Preferences of Generative Artificial Intelligence Feedback for Programming
  3. 2025Dean of LLM Tutors: A Framework for Automated Quality Review of AI-generated Feedback
  4. 2025Partnering with AI: A Pedagogical Feedback System for LLM Integration into Programming Education
  5. 2025Towards Adaptive Feedback with AI: Comparing the Feedback Quality of LLMs and Teachers on Experimentation Protocols
  6. 2026Evaluating Feedback Focus and Pedagogical Adaptivity in LLM-Generated Feedback on Student Writing
  7. 2025"Can You See Me Think?" Grounding LLM Feedback in Keystrokes and Revision Patterns
  8. 2026Consistently Good vs. Occasionally Great: A Rubric for Open-Ended Feedback Quality from Humans and Machines ↗