# Using Learning Progressions to Guide AI Feedback for Science Learning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.03249 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.03249/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 1 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [A large language model-assisted education tool to provide feedback on open-ended responses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.02439/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Learnable Assessment Skills for LLM-based Automated Scoring: Rubric Construction via Iterative Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.29274/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.