> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.learningcommons.org/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Introduction

> Overview of feedback evaluators that measure the quality of teacher and AI-generated coaching feedback on student writing.

export const EarlyAccessBadge = ({size = "md", children}) => {
  return <Badge color="green" size={size} icon="flask">
      {children == null || children === "" ? "Early access" : children}
    </Badge>;
};

<EarlyAccess isBreaking={false} />

## The problem

Edtech developers often wonder if the AI-generated feedback they're delivering to students is actually good coaching. Feedback can be warm but generic, accurate but overwhelming, clear but off-task.

Feedback quality encompasses multiple dimensions, making a single quality score for a piece of feedback misleading. As AI-generated feedback enters classrooms at scale, these dimensions can fail independently and quietly.

## What we're building

Our feedback evaluators surface feedback quality as a multidimensional profile, rather than a verdict. Edtech developers can see the qualities that a piece of AI-generated feedback exhibits, which it's missing, and what to adjust. This helps them measure, monitor, and improve the quality of educators' feedback to students at scale.

Our feedback evaluators are anchored in the Productive Coaching rubric developed by [Quill.org](https://www.quill.org/) ↗ and [Leanlab Education](https://www.leanlabeducation.org/) ↗, in partnership with [Anastasiya A. Lipnevich](https://www.anastasiyalipnevich.com/) ↗.

| Evaluator                                                                                                                | Description                                                                                                                         |
| :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| [Strength Acknowledgement](/evaluators/feedback-evaluators/strength-acknowledgement)<br /><EarlyAccessBadge size="xs" /> | Determines whether feedback names something specific and authentic the student did well, distinct from generic or unanchored praise |
| [Actionability](/evaluators/feedback-evaluators/actionability)<br /><EarlyAccessBadge size="xs" />                       | Determines whether feedback gives a clear, usable next step the student can act on without additional clarification                 |
| [Student Response Anchor](/evaluators/feedback-evaluators/student-response-anchor)<br /><EarlyAccessBadge size="xs" />   | Determines whether feedback is clearly based on the student's specific response                                                     |
| [Appropriateness](/evaluators/feedback-evaluators/appropriateness)<br /><EarlyAccessBadge size="xs" />                   | Determines whether feedback correctly identifies whether the student needed to revise                                               |
| [Manageability](/evaluators/feedback-evaluators/manageability)<br /><EarlyAccessBadge size="xs" />                       | Determines whether the amount of feedback is manageable for the student                                                             |
| [Withholding Answers](/evaluators/feedback-evaluators/withholding-answers)<br /><EarlyAccessBadge size="xs" />           | Determines whether feedback guides the student toward a revision without doing the cognitive work for them                          |
| [Tone Appropriateness](/evaluators/feedback-evaluators/tone-appropriateness)<br /><EarlyAccessBadge size="xs" />         | Determines whether feedback strikes a tone that is appropriate and constructive for the student                                     |

## Scope and limitations

<Warning>
  Feedback evaluator outputs should not be used for high-stakes applications
  like grading, assessment, or placement decisions without human review.

  Remember that LLM scores can vary across runs, especially on borderline cases.
  We recommend keeping a human in the loop and treating outputs as directional
  signals vs. definitive judgments.
</Warning>

| Limitation               | Details                                                                                                                                             |
| :----------------------- | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Validated grade band** | Evaluator validated for grades 8-9 only                                                                                                             |
| **Validated task type**  | Limited to short claim-with-evidence "because" completions from Quill.org – generalization to other prompts, genres, or subject areas is unverified |
| **Binary output**        | Feedback evaluators reduce a nuanced judgment to a binary 0 or 1 output, plus rationale                                                             |

## Related topics

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Literacy evaluators" icon="book-open" href="/evaluators/literacy-evaluators/introduction">
    Explore evaluators that assess qualitative text complexity.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Standards evaluators" icon="certificate" href="/evaluators/standards-evaluators/introduction">
    Explore evaluators that assess content alignment to academic standards.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>