"I Wrote, I Paused, I Rewrote": A Mixed-Methods Study of Learner Perceptions of Process-Aware LLM Feedback
Large language models increasingly provide formative writing feedback, but most systems evaluate only the submitted text. Process-aware systems can additionally incorporate intermediate drafts and interaction records, yet access to these traces does not establish whether learners perceive the resulting feedback as useful, fair, or aligned with their own revision experience. We conducted a convergent mixed-method post-task evaluation with 43 undergraduate English-language learners. Participants completed a timed essay, received LLM-generated feedback based on the final essay, intermediate snapshots, and keystroke-derived records, and then answered six five-point Likert items and four open-ended questions. Ratings were concentrated above the neutral midpoint across all six items. Between 74.4% and 95.3% of participants selected ratings of 4 or 5, and all six one-sided exact sign tests remained significant after Holm correction. Perceived correspondence between the revision analysis and the participant's reported thought process was positively associated with overall perceived usefulness, Spearman's $ρ_s=.327$, 95% bootstrap CI $[.009,.609]$, $p=.032$, $n=43$. Qualitative responses were analysed through an LLM-assisted codebook development procedure followed by independent human coding of 14 binary codes. Participants frequently described the product feedback and revision rationale as accurate, while a smaller set reported misinterpretation of surface corrections, time constraints, or rhetorical intention. The findings distinguish perceived detection of revision activity from perceived interpretation of why revision occurred.