Generative AI and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to question generation and automated assessment. However, deploying LLMs in preparation for high-stakes exams requires more than prompt engineering; it demands software pipelines that systematically ground model outputs in authorised curriculum artefacts and marking guidelines issued by education authorities. This paper presents a curriculum-grounded, configurable LLM-as-Judge pipeline for question-level marking, co-developed with an industrial partner, to support exam preparation for university admission. The pipeline identifies the relevant topics, subtopics, and cognitive demand of a question, and assembles verifiable and authorised context to support LLM judgement. Curriculum intent is operationalised through concrete syllabus artefacts, including prescribed verbs and outcomes, performance band descriptors, glossary definitions, and marking-guideline principles. A staged LLM workflow is employed to first generate question-specific rubrics, capturing structured expectations of performance, and then derive and evaluate marking criteria used to allocate marks to student responses. This design improves consistency, transparency, and alignment with official marking practices. Preliminary evaluation shows that the proposed LLM-as-Judge pipeline delivers marking outcomes comparable to human tutors, while yielding justifications that are more traceable to authorised curriculum artefacts and marking standards. The pipeline has also been integrated into an online study platform, where early deployment data provide initial insights into operational usage and manual overrides.
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.
When the same LLM generates assessment items, simulates student responses, and scores them, the validation loop is self-referential. We introduce Generative-Evaluative Agreement (GEA), a validity criterion measuring whether an LLM's scoring function recovers the skill levels its generative function was instructed to produce. In the first direct measurement of GEA on a two-stage adaptive assessment, the model recovers roughly half the intended variance r = 0.698 with systematic positive bias. GEA is strong r > 0.7 for syntactically verifiable skills but near zero for design-level skills, and low-skill overestimation inflates scores near the routing threshold. We argue that granular, skill-decomposed rubrics are the principal proposed mechanism for strengthening GEA and outline complementary mitigations.
Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for education requires measuring how models teach, not only what they know. Existing benchmarks emphasize domain-general correctness or depend on manually designed rubrics that scale poorly to long-tail pedagogical scenarios. We introduce Elmes*, an end-to-end framework for constructing, refining, and applying fine-grained scenario-specific rubrics. Elmes* combines a declarative multi-agent engine for teacher--student--judge interactions with SceneGen, a self-evolving module that co-optimizes evaluation criteria and test data from expert-defined pedagogical dimensions. Using Elmes*, we build Edu-330, covering 330 scenarios across 11 subjects, 3 grade bands, and 10 task types, with over 1{,}000 second-level indicators. Experiments on Edu-330 and four expert-authored gold-standard scenarios show that educational capability is multidimensional: top-tier LLMs differ mainly in creativity and values integration, knowledge-strong models may fail at Socratic scaffolding, and the education-specialized InnoSpark achieves the best human-evaluated average score. LLM judges preserve human-comparable rankings with much lower scoring variance, but exhibit judge-specific biases such as self-preference. Ablations show that expert-scored few-shot anchoring improves human--LLM alignment, while reasoning enforcement and greedy decoding are model-dependent. Elmes* thus provides scalable diagnostic infrastructure for pedagogically grounded LLM evaluation.