arXiv:2606. 13684v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automatic Bloom's taxonomy classification of assessment questions can substantially reduce instructor workload, but labeling is subjective and teacher-dependent.
By Abdolali Faraji, Mohammadreza Molavi, Zohreh Rasoulkhani, Mohammadreza Tavakoli, G\'abor Kismih\'ok
arXiv:2603. 02830v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Predicting future student responses to questions is particularly valuable for educational learning platforms where it enables effective interventions.
By Prarthana Bhattacharyya, Joshua Mitton, Ralph Abboud, Simon Woodhead
arXiv:2606. 24841v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Prompt-based learning has emerged as a dominant paradigm in natural language processing.
By Ahmad Pouramini, Hesham Faili
QVAC Genesis III is a 191.43 B‑token synthetic STEM corpus covering 19 domains and multiple difficulty levels, created through a dual generation strategy that uses a weak edge‑scale student model to generate corrective explanations and contrastive reasoning. The authors evaluate the corpus with an LLM‑as‑a‑parser protocol and demonstrate that 1.7 B‑parameter models trained on QVAC Genesis III outperform those trained on Cosmopedia‑v2 and the Cosmo‑1B model on ARC, GPQA Diamond, and MMLU STEM benchmarks, achieving up to +28.57% improvement on ARC‑E and a 99.45% valid answer rate.
By Davide Vitabile, N. Ranjan, Akshay Nambiar, Kamal K. Gupta, Amril Nazir
The study examines whether domain‑adaptive continued pretraining (DAPT) on a learner‑writing corpus (EFCAMDAT) can enhance transformer‑based automated essay scoring (AES) for English proficiency tests. Researchers applied DAPT to BERT, RoBERTa, and DistilBERT and compared the adapted models with their original checkpoints on the FCE and IELTS datasets, evaluating both in‑domain scoring and few‑shot cross‑dataset transfer. Results show that full‑corpus DAPT yields mixed effects, while proficiency‑specific DAPT often outperforms full‑corpus DAPT and sometimes even the non‑adapted baseline, though benefits vary by proficiency composition and encoder architecture and do not consistently transfer across tests.
By Duy Anh Nguyen
arXiv:2606. 12767v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating procedural reasoning in AI-supported learning systems requires question-answer datasets that are both learner-like and grounded in the instructional knowledge the system is expected to use.
By Sarah Elshabrawy, Rahul K. Dass, Ashok K. Goel
arXiv:2606. 06546v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for education requires measuring how models teach, not only what they know.
By Tao Liu, Ye Lu, Ruohua Zhang, Siyu Song, Wentao Liu, Aimin Zhou, Hao Hao
arXiv:2606. 12117v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark scores often misrepresent a large language model's (LLM's) knowledge, because they rely, e.
By Selen Erkan, Bastian Boll, Kristian Kersting, Bj\"orn Deiseroth, Letitia Parcalabescu
arXiv:2606. 12422v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The integration of large language models (LLMs) into educational assessment represents a transformative shift in classroom grading practices.
By Zewei Tian, Alex Liu, Lief Esbenshade, Michael Xiao, Zachary Zhang, Yulia L\'apicus, Thomas Han, Kevin He, Min Sun
The paper introduces a human‑in‑the‑loop framework for AI‑assisted scoring of short written responses in a large‑scale national assessment. Using data from two recent test editions with about 5,000 student responses each, the authors validate that AI‑generated scores align moderately to highly with human raters across multiple rubric dimensions. The framework includes a correction workflow that flags cases needing human review, thereby reducing manual workload while maintaining assessment quality.
By Mar\'ia Eugenia Curi, Germ\'an Capdehourat, Isabel Amigo, Magdalena Romano, Rosana Serra, Adri\'an Silveira, Andr\'es Peri
The paper "Limits of LLM Text Detectors in Education" argues that existing LLM‑generated text detectors assume a binary human/LLM distinction, which fails to capture realistic student‑AI collaboration. It introduces a contribution‑aware evaluation framework with eight student contribution levels and presents GEDE, a benchmark of over 900 human‑written and 12,500 generated essays across 886 tasks. Using GEDE, the authors evaluate four detection methods and find that most detectors perform poorly on intermediate contribution levels, especially LLM‑assisted revisions, raising concerns about false accusations.
By Lukas Gehring, Benjamin Paa{\ss}en
EduDial is a large-scale multi-turn teacher‑student dialogue corpus covering 345 core knowledge points and 34,250 dialogue sessions, designed around Bloom’s taxonomy and ten questioning strategies such as situational, ZPD, and metacognitive questioning. The dataset includes differentiated teaching strategies for students at varying cognitive levels to provide targeted guidance. Using EduDial, the authors trained EduDial‑LLM 32B and introduced an 11‑dimensional evaluation framework that measures teaching quality and content quality, showing that most mainstream LLMs struggle with student‑centered teaching while EduDial‑LLM outperforms all baselines across all metrics.
By Shouang Wei, Min Zhang, Xin Lin, Bo Jiang, Zhongxiang Dai, Kun Kuang