arXiv AI
Multimodal examination answer data with expert-designed Outcome-Based Education rubrics for criterion-level assessment
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv Computer Vision
3d ago
Vision-Language Models for Criterion-Level Grading of Handwritten Examinations in Outcome-Based Education
arXiv:2609.14284v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Criterion-level grading connects examination performance to learning outcomes, but manual marking introduces workload and variation between markers. Th...
arXiv AI
Jun 9
Hybrid E-Assessment in Higher Education: Semi-Automated Grading of Paper-Based Written Examinations
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.
arXiv AI
Aug 19
Grading Needs a Rubric, Not Intelligence
Small language models can grade open‑ended exam answers as reliably as much larger models when they use an explicit rubric. In experiments with six cost‑efficient model configurations, the rubric decouples grading from judge intelligence, with answer identity explaining 95.6% of score variance and judge identity only 0.2%. Removing rubric criteria or the official answer collapses reliability and inflates scores, showing the rubric’s essential role.
arXiv AI
Jun 11
Towards Fully Automated Exam Grading: Fairness-Aware Recognition of Handwritten Answers with Foundation Models
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 AI
Jul 3
Automated grading of Linux/bash examinations using large language models: a four-level cognitive taxonomy approach
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.
arXiv AI
Aug 24
Large Scale AI Grading of Handwritten Physics Assessments: Score Agreement and Olympiad Team Selection Outcomes
The study evaluates GPT‑5.5’s ability to grade handwritten physics assessments, using 10,364 scanned pages from 520 submissions by 416 candidates across a national Olympiad theory exam, a final selection camp, and a university quantum‑mechanics exam. Each submission was graded twice, with the second round incorporating refined instructions after analyzing first‑round disagreements. The AI’s total‑score correlations with official marks ranged from 0.91 to 0.97, and it successfully identified the same five‑student team for the final Olympiad selection as human graders, though exact partial‑credit grading—especially in experimental work—remained challenging. "Reliable AI grading therefore depends on detailed rubrics and should be used as a second reader or audit tool under examiner control."