# Marked Pedagogies: Examining Linguistic Biases in Personalized Automated Writing Feedback

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.12471 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.12471/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 59 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Marked Personas: Using Natural Language Prompts to Measure Stereotypes in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18189/) (2023)
- ["Kelly is a Warm Person, Joseph is a Role Model": Gender Biases in LLM-Generated Reference Letters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.09219/) (2023)
- [Large language models that replace human participants can harmfully misportray and flatten identity groups](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01908/) (2024)
- [What's in a Name? Auditing Large Language Models for Race and Gender Bias](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14875/) (2024)
- [Enhancing LLM-Based Feedback: Insights from Intelligent Tutoring Systems and the Learning Sciences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.04645/) (2024)
- [LLMs are Biased Teachers: Evaluating LLM Bias in Personalized Education](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14012/) (2024)
- [Beyond Binary Gender Labels: Revealing Gender Biases in LLMs through Gender-Neutral Name Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.05271/) (2024)
- [A Comprehensive Exploration of Personalized Learning in Smart Education: From Student Modeling to Personalized Recommendations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01666/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Mitigating LLM biases toward spurious social contexts using direct preference optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.02585/) (2026)
- [Evaluating Feedback Focus and Pedagogical Adaptivity in LLM-Generated Feedback on Student Writing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.28026/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Effective personalized feedback is critical to students' literacy development. Though LLM-powered tools now promise to automate such feedback at scale, LLMs are not language-neutral: they privilege standard academic English and reproduce social stereotypes, raising concerns about how "personalization" shapes the feedback students receive. We examine how four widely used LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-3.5-turbo, Llama-3.3 70B, Llama-3.1 8B) adapt written feedback in response to student attributes. Using 600 eighth-grade persuasive essays from the PERSUADE dataset, we generated feedback under prompt conditions embedding gender, race/ethnicity, learning needs, achievement, and motivation. We analyze lexical shifts across model outputs by adapting the Marked Words framework. Our results reveal systematic, stereotype-aligned shifts in feedback conditioned on presumed student attributes--even when essay content was identical. Feedback for students marked by race, language, or disability often exhibited positive feedback bias and feedback withholding bias--overuse of praise, less substantive critique, and assumptions of limited ability. Across attributes, models tailored not only what content was emphasized but also how writing was judged and how students were addressed. We term these instructional orientations Marked Pedagogies and highlight the need for transparency and accountability in automated feedback tools.