The rapid advancements in large language models and generative artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities are making their broad application in the high-stakes testing context more likely. Use of generative AI in the scoring of constructed responses is particularly appealing because it reduces the effort required for handcrafting features in traditional AI scoring and might even outperform those methods. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the differences in the feature-based and generative AI applications in constructed response scoring systems and propose a set of best practices for the collection of validity evidence to support the use and interpretation of constructed response scores from scoring systems using generative AI. We compare the validity evidence needed in scoring systems using human ratings, feature-based natural language processing AI scoring engines, and generative AI. The evidence needed in the generative AI context is more extensive than in the feature-based scoring context because of the lack of transparency and other concerns unique to generative AI such as consistency. Constructed response score data from a large corpus of independent argumentative essays written by 6-12th grade students demonstrate the collection of validity evidence for different types of scoring systems and highlight the numerous complexities and considerations when making a validity argument for these scores.
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) models, particularly large language models (LLMs), are increasingly used in educational settings for tasks such as item generation, automated scoring, and feedback delivery. The quality of these outputs depends not only on the AI model but also on how users construct the prompts that guide model behaviors. Current prompt engineering practices are largely ad hoc, relying on trial and error rather than principled design. This lack of structure introduces validity threats including construct misrepresentation, construct-irrelevant variance, and limited reproducibility. We propose that Evidence-Centered Design (ECD), a framework in educational measurement for structuring valid inferences from observed performance, can serve as a principled foundation for prompt engineering in educational applications. We map the three core ECD models, the student model, the evidence model, and the task model, onto the components of educational prompt design, and describe a workflow for ECD-based prompt engineering. We derive five design principles from this mapping and present an empirical study contrasting ECD-designed prompts with state-of-the-art (SOTA) prompting baselines on an automated scoring task. Our empirical study demonstrates the usefulness of this framework on automated scoring. Results suggest that treating prompting as assessment design rather than informal instructions strengthens the validity, reliability, and fairness of AI-generated educational outputs.
Jiawei Xiong, Cheng Tang, Hong Jiao +1
Curriculum Associates · The University of Georgia · The University of Maryland, College Park
Automated systems have been widely adopted across the educational testing industry for open-response assessment and essay scoring. These systems commonly achieve performance levels comparable to or superior than trained human raters, but have frequently been demonstrated to be vulnerable to the influence of construct-irrelevant factors (i.e., features of responses that are unrelated to the construct assessed) and adversarial conditions. Given the rising usage of large language models in automated scoring systems, there is a renewed focus on ``hallucinations'' and the robustness of these LLM-based automated scoring approaches to construct-irrelevant factors. This study investigates the effects of construct-irrelevant factors on a dual-architecture LLM-based scoring system designed to score short essay-like open-response items in a situational judgment test. It was found that the scoring system was generally robust to padding responses with meaningless text, spelling errors, and writing sophistication. Duplicating large passages of text resulted in lower scores predicted by the system, on average, contradicting results from previous studies of non-LLM-based scoring systems, while off-topic responses were heavily penalized by the scoring system. These results provide encouraging support for the robustness of future LLM-based scoring systems when designed with construct relevance in mind.
The integration of large language models (LLMs) into educational assessment represents a transformative shift in classroom grading practices. While automated scoring systems and machine learning techniques have existed for decades, generative AI (GenAI) now enables educators to implement standards-based grading (SBG) with unprecedented efficiency and scale. This paper examines the theoretical foundations and evaluates an LLM grader that uses commercially available foundation models with context and prompt engineering to score student work against a rubric. Drawing on an empirical interrater agreement study using Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) data, we observed the Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) and Proportional Reduction in Mean-Squared Error (PRMSE) across mathematics, science, and ELA, using Claude Sonnet 4, Haiku 4.5, GPT-5, and GPT-5 Mini. The results demonstrate that LLM graders, especially when based on foundational models with more parameters, achieve substantial agreement with human raters in mathematics and science assessments, while the performances vary in ELA, suggesting generic foundation models can be effective at scoring in given contexts. Additional analysis of teacher and student feedback reveals strong acceptance of AI-generated narrative feedback but skepticism toward numerical scores, suggesting that LLMs function most effectively as formative tools rather than summative evaluators. Our findings indicate that thoughtfully designed hybrid models that combine AI efficiency with teacher judgment can reduce workload, enhance feedback quality, and support equitable assessment practices without displacing professional expertise.