arXiv:2608.22346v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: This data article describes a multimodal collection of scanned examination answers paired with expert-designed Outcome-Based Education (OBE) grading...
By Jahangir Alam SM, Md Khalid Syfullah, Saad Ahmed, Munira Akter Mou, A K Z Rasel Rahman, A. K. M. Masudur Rahman, Mohammed Sowket Ali
arXiv:2606. 11477v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Correcting handwritten exams by hand is time-consuming and error-prone, particularly for large cohorts, while fully digital exams tend to force a didactic narrowing towards closed question formats.
By Hartwig Grabowski
arXiv:2609.13288v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Video-language models can answer multiple-choice questions with high confidence yet be wrong. We study whether answer-level reliability scores can be i...
By Guoxiang Ren, Rohitash Chandra
arXiv:2607. 01247v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Open-ended mathematics exams are valuable because they assess reasoning, proof construction, algorithmic thinking, and communication of intermediate steps.
By Aastha Sapkota, M. G. Sarwar Murshed
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
arXiv:2607. 02432v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scalable and reliable grading of command-line examinations remains a challenge in computing education, where rising enrolments make manual marking difficult and rule-based autograders cannot handle partial credit, equivalent solutions, or syntactic variation.
By Manuel Alonso-Carracedo, Ruben Fernandez-Boullon, Pedro Celard, Francisco J. Rodriguez-Martinez, Lorena Otero-Cerdeira
arXiv:2608. 07523v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Difficulty differences across parallel-class programming examinations affect the fairness of course assessment.
By Hongfei Yan, Jiangkai Xiong, Yiqing Li, Chong Chen
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
arXiv:2608.29517v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as essay graders in learning analytics, evaluated almost exclusively with agreement statistics. Educ...
By Veerendra Kumar Sunkavalli
arXiv:2606. 24839v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic data analysis systems produce rich outputs, including code, numerical results, and verbal diagnostics.
By Tian Zheng, Kai-Tai Hsu
arXiv:2606. 24973v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce a dataset of 32,534 double-marked real student responses to GCSE mock exams (GCSEs are the UK's national exams, taken at age ~16), spanning 328 questions across five subjects and including handwritten work.
By Malachy Fox, Kavi Samra, Paul Jung
arXiv:2609.09184v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Vision-language model (VLM) confidence may change in aggregate when visual evidence is degraded while remaining structurally inconsistent within indivi...
By Muhamathu Ameer Ali Aacaas Muhamath