Although large language models (LLMs) show promise for generating educational feedback, it remains unclear how feedback should be designed (e.g., tone and coverage) to support answer revision and learner evaluations across learner profiles. We define six feedback designs for multiple-choice biology questions, including a baseline design and five variants with additional feedback elements, and conduct an empirical study with 321 high school students. We evaluate feedback using immediate revision performance and six subjective evaluation criteria, and analyze differences in subjective evaluations across learner profiles based on personality traits. Our results show that presenting task-relevant information clearly is associated with better immediate revision performance and is favorably evaluated across learner profiles, while we observe descriptive differences in evaluation patterns, particularly for informational novelty and affective framing. These findings support further investigation of personalized LLM feedback design.

While recent studies have explored human behavior and preference simulation using large language models (LLMs), it remains unclear how well LLMs can simulate subjective evaluations from real learners in educational settings. We investigate this question using real learner evaluation data on feedback for high-school biology questions at both the group and individual levels. We compare performance with and without learner-specific information, such as personality traits and evaluation examples, across six models. Our results show that LLMs still have a limited ability to simulate learner evaluations. Providing learner profiles and examples improves score calibration and individual-level simulation, but more often fails to improve group-level consistency. These findings highlight the need to investigate which learner information and adaptation strategies are effective for learner preference simulation.