{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,25]],"date-time":"2026-04-25T10:34:34Z","timestamp":1777113274634,"version":"3.51.4"},"publisher-location":"New York, NY, USA","reference-count":40,"publisher":"ACM","content-domain":{"domain":["dl.acm.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,27]]},"DOI":"10.1145\/3785022.3785120","type":"proceedings-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,25]],"date-time":"2026-04-25T09:39:01Z","timestamp":1777109941000},"page":"610-620","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["The Blind Spots in Automated Feedback Generation for Academic Writing"],"prefix":"10.1145","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0002-9553-9000","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Toru","family":"Sasaki","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Human-Technology Interaction, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-6316-4892","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Rianne","family":"Conijn","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Human-Technology Interaction, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-5908-9511","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Martijn C.","family":"Willemsen","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Human-Technology Interaction, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands and Jheronimus Academy of Data Science, 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands"}]}],"member":"320","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,26]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_2_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.18653\/v1\/P16-1068"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_3_2","unstructured":"Laura\u00a0K Allen Matthew\u00a0E Jacovina and Danielle\u00a0S McNamara. 2016. Computer-Based Writing Instruction. Grantee Submission (2016)."},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_4_2","unstructured":"Yigal Attali. 2004. Exploring the feedback and revision features of Criterion. Journal of Second Language Writing 14 3 (2004) 191\u2013205."},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_5_2","unstructured":"Yigal Attali and Jill Burstein. 2006. Automated essay scoring with e-rater\u00ae V. 2. The Journal of Technology Learning and Assessment 4 3 (2006)."},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_6_2","unstructured":"Chi-Fen\u00a0Emily Chen and Wei-Yuan Eugene\u00a0Cheng Cheng. 2008. Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. About Language Learning & Technology (2008)."},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_7_2","first-page":"3008","volume-title":"Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference","author":"Choi Jaeho","year":"2010","unstructured":"Jaeho Choi and Youngju Lee. 2010. The use of feedback in the ESL writing class integrating automated essay scoring (AES). In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 3008\u20133012."},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_8_2","first-page":"292","volume-title":"International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education","author":"Coyne Steven","year":"2025","unstructured":"Steven Coyne, Diana Galvan-Sosa, Ryan Spring, Cam\u00e9lia Guerraoui, Michael Zock, Keisuke Sakaguchi, and Kentaro Inui. 2025. Annotating Errors in English Learners\u2019 Written Language Production: Advancing Automated Written Feedback Systems. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, 292\u2013306."},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_9_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1109\/ICALT58122.2023.00100"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_10_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Galina Deeva Daria Bogdanova Estefan\u00eda Serral Monique Snoeck and Jochen De\u00a0Weerdt. 2021. A review of automated feedback systems for learners: Classification framework challenges and opportunities. Computers & Education 162 (2021) 104094.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.compedu.2020.104094"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_11_2","unstructured":"Semire Dikli. 2006. An Overview of Automated Scoring of Essays. The Journal of Technology Learning and Assessment 5 1 (Aug. 2006)."},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_12_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Semire Dikli and Susan Bleyle. 2014. Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback? Assessing writing 22 (2014) 1\u201317.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.asw.2014.03.006"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_13_2","unstructured":"Afrizal Doewes and Mykola Pechenizkiy. 2021. On the Limitations of Human-Computer Agreement in Automated Essay Scoring. International educational data mining society (2021)."},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_14_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.18653\/v1\/N18-1024"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_15_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Tira\u00a0Nur Fitria. 2021. Grammarly as AI-powered English writing assistant: Students\u2019 alternative for writing English. Metathesis: Journal of English Language Literature and Teaching 5 1 (2021) 65\u201378.","DOI":"10.31002\/metathesis.v5i1.3519"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_16_2","unstructured":"Douglas Grimes and Mark Warschauer. 2010. Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. The Journal of Technology Learning and Assessment 8 6 (2010)."},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_17_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/3402569.3402594"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_18_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Mohamed\u00a0Abdellatif Hussein Hesham Hassan and Mohammad Nassef. 2019. Automated language essay scoring systems: A literature review. PeerJ Computer Science 5 (2019) e208.","DOI":"10.7717\/peerj-cs.208"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_19_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Lucas\u00a0Jasper Jacobsen and Kira\u00a0Elena Weber. 2023. The promises and pitfalls of ChatGPT as a feedback provider in higher education: An exploratory study of prompt engineering and the quality of AI-driven feedback. (2023).","DOI":"10.31219\/osf.io\/cr257"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_20_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Simon Knight Antonette Shibani Sophie Abel Andrew Gibson and Philippa Ryan. 2020. AcaWriter: A learning analytics tool for formative feedback on academic writing. Journal of Writing Research (2020).","DOI":"10.17239\/jowr-2020.12.01.06"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_21_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Paraskevas Lagakis and Stavros Demetriadis. 2021. Automated Essay Feedback Generation in the Learning of Writing: A Review of the Field. Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning (2021) 443\u2013453.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-030-96296-8_40"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_22_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Paula Larrondo Brian Frank and Juli\u00e1n Ortiz. 2021. The state of the art in providing automated feedback to open-ended student work. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) (2021).","DOI":"10.24908\/pceea.vi0.14854"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_23_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.18653\/v1\/2020.bea-1.15"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_24_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Atsushi Mizumoto and Masaki Eguchi. 2023. Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 2 2 (2023) 100050.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.rmal.2023.100050"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_25_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.18653\/v1\/2023.bea-1.32"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_26_2","unstructured":"Odunayo Oduntan Ibrahim Adeyanju Falohun A.s and Olumide Obe. 2018. A Comparative Analysis of Euclidean Distance and Cosine Similarity Measure for Automated Essay-Type Grading. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 13 (07 2018) 4198\u20134204."},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_27_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Vidasha Ramnarain-Seetohul Vandana Bassoo and Yasmine Rosunally. 2022. Similarity measures in automated essay scoring systems: A ten-year review. Education and Information Technologies 27 4 (2022) 5573\u20135604.","DOI":"10.1007\/s10639-021-10838-z"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_28_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Jim Ranalli. 2021. L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for learning and issues of trust. Journal of Second Language Writing 52 (2021) 100816.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jslw.2021.100816"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_29_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1109\/ICDMW58026.2022.00045"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_30_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Patrick Schramowski Cigdem Turan Nico Andersen Constantin\u00a0A Rothkopf and Kristian Kersting. 2022. Large pre-trained language models contain human-like biases of what is right and wrong to do. Nature Machine Intelligence 4 3 (2022) 258\u2013268.","DOI":"10.1038\/s42256-022-00458-8"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_31_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/3706468.3706527"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_32_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Jacob Steiss Tamara Tate Steve Graham Jazmin Cruz Michael Hebert Jiali Wang Youngsun Moon Waverly Tseng Mark Warschauer and Carol\u00a0Booth Olson. 2024. Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students\u2019 writing. Learning and Instruction 91 (2024) 101894.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.learninstruc.2024.101894"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_33_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Marie Stevenson and Aek Phakiti. 2014. The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 51\u201365.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.asw.2013.11.007"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_34_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Carola Strobl Emilie Ailhaud Kalliopi Benetos Ann Devitt Otto Kruse Antje Proske and Christian Rapp. 2019. Digital support for academic writing: A review of technologies and pedagogies. Computers & education 131 (2019) 33\u201348.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.compedu.2018.12.005"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_35_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.18653\/v1\/D16-1193"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_36_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Masaki Uto. 2021. A review of deep-neural automated essay scoring models. Behaviormetrika 48 2 (2021) 459\u2013484.","DOI":"10.1007\/s41237-021-00142-y"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_37_2","first-page":"5998","volume-title":"Advances in neural information processing systems","author":"Vaswani Ashish","year":"2017","unstructured":"Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan\u00a0N Gomez, \u0141ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 5998\u20136008."},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_38_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Mark Warschauer and Douglas Grimes. 2008. Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal 3 1 (2008) 22\u201336.","DOI":"10.1080\/15544800701771580"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_39_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/3706468.3706566"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_40_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.18653\/v1\/2023.acl-long.172"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_41_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3115\/v1\/W15-0616"}],"event":{"name":"LAK 2026: LAK26: 16th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference","location":"Bergen Norway","acronym":"LAK 2026"},"container-title":["Proceedings of the LAK26: 16th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference"],"original-title":[],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,25]],"date-time":"2026-04-25T09:41:18Z","timestamp":1777110078000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/10.1145\/3785022.3785120"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,26]]},"references-count":40,"alternative-id":["10.1145\/3785022.3785120","10.1145\/3785022"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/3785022.3785120","relation":{},"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,26]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2026-04-26","order":3,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}