arXiv:2606. 08855v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This paper examines the limitations of fully digital and partially digital e-assessment approaches in summative examinations in higher education.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
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.
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...
arXiv:2606. 17507v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative AI and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to question generation and automated assessment.
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.
arXiv:2603. 27223v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We present EuraGovExam, a multilingual and multimodal benchmark sourced from real-world civil service examinations across five representative Eurasian regions: South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, India, and the European Union.
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.