Automated Essay Scoring (AES) for English proficiency assessment increasingly relies on pretrained transformer models, yet these models are typically trained on general-domain English and may under-represent second-language learner writing. This study investigates whether domain-adaptive continued pretraining (DAPT) on a learner-writing corpus improves transformer-based AES for English proficiency assessment. We perform DAPT on BERT, RoBERTa, and DistilBERT using the EFCAMDAT corpus, then compare the adapted models with their original checkpoints on two English proficiency test datasets, FCE and IELTS, in both in-domain scoring and few-shot cross-dataset transfer. Full-corpus DAPT produces mixed effects across models, datasets, and metrics. Subsequent lexical and syntactic analyses suggest mismatches between EFCAMDAT and the downstream datasets in proficiency level, genre, and communicative purpose. We therefore repeat DAPT using proficiency-specific EFCAMDAT subsets across all three encoder architectures. Proficiency-specific DAPT frequently outperforms full-corpus DAPT and, in some settings, even the non-adapted baseline. Overall, continued pretraining on learner writing can improve in-domain AES, but its benefits depend on both the proficiency composition of the pretraining data and the underlying encoder architecture, and do not consistently extend to cross-test transfer.
Automated Essay Scoring (AES) faces significant challenges in cross-prompt settings, where models must generalize to unseen writing prompts. To address this limitation, we propose MAPLE, a meta-learning framework that leverages prototypical networks to learn transferable representations across different writing prompts. Across three diverse datasets (ELLIPSE and ASAP (English), and LAILA (Arabic)), MAPLE achieves state-of-the-art performance on ELLIPSE and LAILA, outperforming strong baselines by 8.5 and 3 points in QWK, respectively. On ASAP, where prompts exhibit heterogeneous score ranges, MAPLE yields improvements on several traits, highlighting the strengths of our approach in unified scoring settings. Overall, our results demonstrate the potential of meta-learning for building robust cross-prompt AES systems.
Salam Albatarni, May Bashendy, Sohaila Eltanbouly +1
The majority of the recently-developed models for automated essay scoring (AES) are evaluated solely on the ASAP corpus. However, ASAP is not without its limitations. For instance, it is not clear whether models trained on ASAP can generalize well when evaluated on other corpora. In light of these limitations, we introduce ICLE++, a corpus of persuasive student essays annotated with both holistic scores and trait-specific scores. Not only can ICLE++ be used to test the generalizability of AES models trained on ASAP, but it can also facilitate the evaluation of models developed for newer AES problems such as multi-trait scoring and cross-prompt scoring. We believe that ICLE++, which represents a culmination of our long-term effort in annotating the essays in the ICLE corpus, contributes to the set of much-needed annotated corpora for AES research.
Synthetic essays can help reduce dependence on human-written data in Automated Essay Scoring (AES). However, they often lack realistic errors, limiting their ability to represent authentic human writing, particularly when the target texts are intended to resemble those produced by language learners. In this study, we present a simple approach that introduces error supervision into synthetic essay generation. Specifically, we fine-tune an LLM generator on error-annotated texts of the kind commonly used in Grammatical Error Detection (GED). To assess the utility of the proposed approach, we fine-tune and evaluate AES scorers under three data conditions: authentic essays, synthetic essays generated conventionally, and synthetic essays generated using our proposed approach. The results show that in the larger-data settings, the proposed approach outperforms the conventional synthetic baseline in 11 out of 12 dataset-metric comparisons, with performance in some cases approaching that of models trained on authentic essays. Despite these gains, performance under extremely low-resource settings remains mixed, with advantages over the conventional baseline only becoming more apparent at 200 training essays, although not consistently across datasets. Qualitative and quantitative analyses further show that the proposed approach produces learner-like errors whose distributions broadly resemble those observed in authentic essays.