Educational Assessment

Automatic Short Answer Scoring (ASAS) is central to NLP for Education. However, openly available benchmarks remain scarce, and existing datasets largely address how well students answer a question directly rather than how well they master underlying concepts (knowledge elements) such as thermal energy or epistemic activities (skills) such as reasoning or claim. To address this gap, we introduce Alice, a large-scale, rubric-based German ASAS dataset that is pedagogically aligned and comprises three subtasks: (i) learning performance (Alice-LP), (ii) knowledge elements (Alice-KE), and (iii) skills (Alice-SK). We further formulate rubric-based ASAS as a rubric-retrieval task and benchmark the dataset with a range of language models, from encoder-only models to lightweight LLMs. We also benchmark the dataset with zero-shot prompting via LLMs and a standard classification baseline. The experiments show that LLMs, in particular, struggle to score knowledge elements and skills in the zero-shot setting. They also indicate that rubric text is often useful, especially for Alice-KE and Alice-SK, while on Alice-LP gains over sample-solution-focused inputs are more modest and vary by model and input format.

Cognitive Diagnostic Models (CDMs) identify which specific skills a student has and has not mastered, the signal a personalized learning path needs and a single aggregate score cannot give. Yet they are rarely deployed. The obstacle is their precondition: the Q-matrix, a mapping from every assessment item to the skills it requires, historically authored by hand. We separate the task into two stages: first construct the curriculum's own knowledge graph, the full space of concepts and skills it contains, independent of any item; then map items against that graph on demand. This paper addresses the first stage only. The item-mapping stage is designed but not implemented here, so the claim that this shifts judgment cost from once per item to once per curriculum is a design rationale rather than a finding. We present Curriculum Brain, a two-repository system pairing a version-controlled knowledge base with an agentic pipeline of eleven single-responsibility agents under a thin deterministic orchestrator. It generates candidate concept-skill mappings from official curriculum documents, checks them against accumulated rules, and compares them with a concept-skill map extracted independently from the textbook, repairing its own failures and escalating to a human only when it cannot resolve a case itself. Across 241 chapter runs (168 distinct chapters), 41.5% produced a Generator output passing both checks without a patch, and 67.6% resolved without escalation. Both are measured against criteria the system itself produced, so both describe internal consistency rather than agreement with an external standard, and both pool two pipeline configurations separated by a single change at run 77; after it the figures are 57.0% and 91.5%. Observed spend was $1.19 per chapter, API spend only, excluding human review. We release both the framework and the resulting curriculum dataset.

Timely and specific feedback is one of the strongest influences on student learning, yet it is difficult to sustain in large electrical engineering classes where the ratio of students to demonstrators is high and a learner who is stuck may wait days to find out why an approach was wrong. Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) offers a way to scale conversational feedback, but using it to grade assessed work raises trust and accountability concerns, and keeping a human in the loop to assure its judgements reintroduces the very delay that erodes the value of feedback. The result is a tension between the immediacy that makes feedback so impactful and the human oversight that makes it trustworthy. In this work, we set out to resolve that tension in practice by designing and piloting a GenAI practice platform that delivers immediate, scaffolded feedback during self-directed practice. This relocates human oversight from real-time grading to the upfront verification of solutions. Our goal was to understand how students engaged with the tool, how they perceived the value and reliability of its feedback, and what lessons transfer to other engineering subjects.

We present an educator-guided LLM pedagogical agent for scaffolded feedback in conceptual database design. Integrated into an entity--relationship diagram (ERD) editor, the system grounds feedback in the student artifact, assignment requirements, educator-authored rubrics, and instructional resources. Its architecture separates hidden, artifact-grounded diagnosis from the workflow that controls the form and disclosure level of student-facing support. We instantiate the architecture as a four-stage workflow progressing from concept checks and guided application to low-detail feedback and localized clarification. Each feedback request creates a stateful episode linked to versioned ERD states. In a deployment spanning three ERD environments and 383 feedback episodes, 71.1% of observed target-level changes fully or partially incorporated the hidden diagnostic target, including many after Stages~1--2. Qualitative analysis showed that staged disclosure sometimes withheld inaccurate details, supported selective uptake, or allowed later recovery, though some errors still shaped revisions. Survey responses from a self-selected sample favored delayed disclosure and student agency but noted indirectness and repetition.

Real-time classroom polling is now routine, yet the data it produces is usually read narrowly, as a correctness score or a headcount. Such readings say little about what a poll is doing within a lecture or how it shapes engagement. This is particularly relevant for short-response formats such as True/False, where the same question format can be used to test recall, check comprehension, or direct students' attention to a deliberately misleading statement. This study asks whether a poll's answer and instructional function can be determined by reading it against its lecture transcript, what cognitive levels of Bloom's taxonomy and instructional-function clusters the corpus contains, and how student engagement relates to answering correctly. We analyse a naturalistic corpus of 47 live sessions over 39 days, comprising 604 poll questions and 340,668 responses from 2,807 learners, most items True/False, read against time-aligned lecture transcripts and attendance. Reading each poll in context proves essential: the answer to 89% of polls is locatable in the lecture, and a recurring attention-checking device is visible only through context. Questioning is overwhelmingly lower-order and falls into seven instructional functions, and a poll's response follows its function rather than its wording. Engagement is broad but concentrated, and the class majority answers correctly 88.5% of the time, though a small set of high-consensus yet incorrect answers cannot be detected by agreement alone. An independent survey of 579 students agrees on what the polls are and on their participation, but reveals a gap between perception and reality: students cannot judge their own correctness, and the polls they find hardest are not those they answer worst.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) imposes a thorough evaluation of their linguistic and analytical capabilities as well as constraints, particularly for a language with limited benchmark coverage such as Greek. To address the limited availability of comprehensive benchmarks in this domain, we introduce Prot-Ex and Pan-Ex, two benchmarks consisting of questions from entrance exams for Greek Model and Experimental schools as well as the Panhellenic exams (the Greek national university entrance examinations). These benchmarks are employed to assess the performance of text-only LLMs-including the Greek-adapted KriKri-8B-Instruct, Llama-3.1-8B, Gemma-4-26B, and Qwen-3-32B-across diverse academic disciplines (Modern Greek, Mathematics, Physics, etc.) and task formats (closed, structured, and open-ended), including textualized visual context (i.e., image descriptions). Our findings indicate the localized KriKri-8B significantly outperforms its base model, successfully rivalling much larger LLMs in linguistically demanding humanities tasks. By leveraging an LLM-as-a-Judge methodology, we expose the inadequacy of traditional lexical metrics for evaluating complex reasoning. Crucially, we uncover a few-shot prompting paradox: while synthetic examples improve accuracy in closed-ended questions, they severely overload the context window of 8B models in structured tasks, causing significant performance degradation. Ultimately, this study suggests targeted linguistic adaptation offsets lower parameter counts in specialized domains, despite the fragility of smaller models to prompt verbosity.

The surge in AI-assisted generation of educational materials has outpaced our capacity to validate their pedagogical quality. Automated evaluation using Bloom Classifier models is a promising approach to assess educational materials at scale. These models show high accuracy within-distribution dataset (IID Dataset). However, applying the same models to new out-of-distribution (OOD) datasets such as AI-assisted generated questions could show performance degradation. To identify robust classifiers under dataset shift, we evaluated traditional Machine Learning (ML), transformer, and Large Language models on the Bloom level classification task. We also explored feature-engineering strategies incorporating NLP metrics, appending the learning objectives as part of the input, and text splicing to stabilize OOD performance. Our baseline tests show that TFPOS-IDF ML models perform poorly on OOD (Macro F1-score 0.48) compared to BERT (0.55) and LLMs (0.79). Text splicing improved macro F1-score performance of ML and BERT models (0.59 and 0.62, respectively). Appending the learning objectives with the input increased model performance on specific dataset. Model retraining provided the largest improvement across models and datasets. Overall, these findings highlight the trade-off on the use of pre-trained models with novel AI-assisted educational questions and how strategic feature enhancements help address loss in performance.

Classroom observations are widely recognized as a key tool for establishing benchmarks of education quality and guiding pedagogical improvement, yet they remain resource-intensive and dependent on trained observers. This study evaluated the feasibility of using a LLM (GPT-5 model) to score teacher-child interactions in early childhood classrooms, benchmarked against human raters. The study analyzed 87 video-recorded observations from 38 classrooms across 30 kindergartens in Hong Kong. Using observation transcripts, the AI model was configured to apply the full Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) framework. AI-rated scores were then compared with human ratings by examining correlations and differences in mean scores of the CLASS domains and dimensions. The results showed greater convergence between AI and raters for the Emotional Support domain and, in particular, the Quality of Feedback dimension, which captures how teachers use feedback to extend children's learning. Greater divergence emerged for interactions that were more procedural or context-dependent, particularly within the Classroom Organization and Instructional Support domains. These findings suggest that transcript-based AI scoring may capture some of the relative variation in teacher-child interactions but cannot yet reproduce calibrated human judgements consistently across the full CLASS framework. AI-assisted observation may therefore be more appropriate as a preliminary screening tool rather than as a replacement for trained observers, providing teachers with evidence for reflection rather than high-stakes evaluation. Future research should examine whether domain-specific training and incorporation of contextual and visual information can improve alignment between AI and human rated scores.

Automatic Item Generation (AIG) is pivotal for personalized education, yet guaranteeing the pedagogical value of generated items remains a bottleneck. Existing Item Quality Assessment (IQA) methods typically rely on unscalable manual reviews or shallow stem-based metrics, failing to capture the reasoning process required for mathematical problem-solving. To bridge this gap, this paper proposes Process-based Item Quality Assessment (ProIQA), a process-aware framework for fine-grained quality assessment of math items. We first formulate IQA across three heterogeneous dimensions, including knowledge concepts, difficulty, and disciplinary competencies, under a unified process-aware perspective. Based on this formulation, we construct a process-enhanced IQA resource by augmenting original item data with structured reasoning trees derived from raw solutions. Technically, ProIQA leverages Large Language Modelsto construct hierarchical reasoning trees and employs Graph Neural Networks (GNN) to encode their topological dependencies and procedural semantics. The resulting solving representation is fused with stem semantics through a dual-view (``Stem + Solving'') architecture, enabling comprehensive assessment across learning objectives. Extensive experiments on K12 mathematical datasets show that ProIQA effectively captures process-oriented features, offering a scalable data-driven solution for evaluating AIG outputs in intelligent education systems.

Institutions practising outcome-based education compute learning outcome attainment routinely, while reviews of curriculum analytics report an absence of evidence on how that computation informs decisions. This paper presents OBER+, an extension of a deployed institutional attainment platform that computes the step from a measured shortfall to an evaluated corrective action. Five connected stages accumulate attainment across deliveries of a course, signal a shortfall and a persistent shortfall, grade it on cutoffs the regulator already uses, record the decision against a catalogue of practices annotated with their evidence, log the change, and quantify the subsequent movement in the shortfall. A further rule compares successive statements of an outcome, so attainment is never read as a series across a point at which the outcome changed. Applying the rules to the live record of two real courses produced three results. Every outcome of a core course was substantively redefined between consecutive deliveries, with subject matter moving between outcome numbers, so a naive reading would have reported a twenty-five point collapse between quantities that do not refer to the same learning. Recomputing the platform's figures from its documented rule showed six of ten differing by more than rounding explains, in a pattern that identified a defect since reported to the institution. Across fifteen statement pairs from three transitions, five were identical character for character, and among the ten that were not, the outcome carrying a given number was nearest to a differently numbered earlier outcome in six, a result resting on an ordering of similarities and requiring no threshold and no labelling. The contribution is a computational design for outcome-based reporting, stated as rules any attainment platform can implement, with evidence of what they make visible in a live institutional record.

We present results from reconstructing multiple-choice model (MCM) and three-parameter logistic (3PL) model curves using a fine-tuned multimodal large language model (LLM) based on Qwen3.5. The model is prompted and fine-tuned to replicate choice probabilities across a large training corpus of multiple-choice items containing both image and text stimuli, conditioned on a labeled set of student ability levels. By learning to reproduce the systematic error patterns of students across a discrete range of abilities, the LLM implicitly captures the underlying response probabilities encoded in the 3PL and MCM curves. This allows us to accurately approximate item difficulty on a held-out test set directly from the model's predicted option probabilities.

Second language writing research distinguishes grammatical accuracy from native-like idiomaticity, yet automated writing evaluation often conflates these dimensions. This study introduces a layered LLM-correction pipeline that isolates structural errors from unnaturalness by generating literal error corrections and idiomatic revisions for 3,830 English writing samples from 120 Japanese junior high school students. Applying the regex-based CEFR-J grammar extractor, we quantify two diagnostic measures: accuracy gaps (structures attempted but incorrectly produced) and idiomatic gaps (grammatically correct structures underused or overused relative to native norms). Results reveal distinct patterns: definite articles, third-person singular -s, and modals (would, could) exhibit significant accuracy difficulties, while -ing forms and hypothetical modals (would) show the largest idiomatic underuse, with simple present verbs, subject-verb-object patterns, and modal can conversely exhibiting the most pronounced overuse. A two-dimensional instructional typology maps error rates against idiomatic gaps, distinguishing accurate but overused grammar items from error-prone or avoided complex forms requiring targeted production practice. This framework advances pedagogical feedback by enabling teachers to diagnose whether learner difficulties arise from inaccurate execution, structural avoidance, or L1-mapped overreliance, supporting evidence-based interventions tailored to the specific needs of each learner.

SetEasy optimizes classroom engagement in fixed seating grids. It fuses multimodal sensing (wristband physiology, 4K video, environmental data) and trains a v-Gage model grounded in a revised ISEQ. Each week, two-week engagement forecasts are mapped to a student-seat utility matrix, and CP-SAT generates seating plans under visual-access and social-dynamics constraints. In a four-week deployment (23 students, 331 classes), v-Gage converged across affective, behavioral, cognitive, and overall dimensions, cutting RMSE from 0.75 to 0.53. Optimization raised mean engagement from 0.30 to 0.70, with over two-thirds of seats reaching high engagement and back-row low-activity patterns markedly reduced. These results show that, without hardware changes, interpretable, data-driven seating strategies can substantially enhance engagement. The multimodal "assessment + optimization" paradigm offers a transferable, sustainable path to culturally responsive, differentiated spatial design amid global homogenization.

Automated item evaluation (AIE) refers to the use of computational methods to assess item quality without requiring manual expert review or field testing of the items under evaluation. We aimed to build a near-comprehensive AIE model by predicting item acceptance and rejection from item text using historical rejection data from a large-scale standardized testing program. The dataset contained 52,759 English language arts (ELA) and mathematics items with 34% permanently rejected from future operational use. Rejection reasons included poor psychometric properties, content issues, bias and sensitivity concerns, and non-content issues. We fine-tuned a DeBERTaV3-large classifier on raw item text, a second DeBERTa classifier on Qwen3-generated item critiques, and a fusion model combining representations from both. The fusion model achieved the strongest overall performance (Accuracy = .75, F1 = .64, AUC = .80, Sensitivity = .64, Specificity = .81). Prediction for math (F1 = .73, AUC = .86) was considerably more accurate than ELA (F1 = .51, AUC = .72). Lowering the decision threshold from .5 to .25 raised average sensitivity for ELA and math to .88 and .91, while reducing specificity to .31 and .56, respectively, which may be preferable in automated item generation contexts where generating items is cheaper than evaluating them. Incorporating item critiques alongside raw item text improved performance across most rejection reasons. The model assigned higher rejection probabilities to more difficult items. However, the fusion model struggled to identify items flagged for bias, sensitivity, fairness, or accessibility, especially for ELA. These findings suggest that text-based AIE is feasible in some areas and may offer a practical tool for reducing the burden of manual review and field testing, while also underscoring the importance of human review for items with fairness concerns.

Predicting item difficulty from content can provide an initial estimate for newly developed questions before sufficient student responses are available. Existing approaches typically represent the question stem and answer choices as text. When mathematics items contain visual components, a common pipeline first textualizes that evidence and then applies a text predictor. We ask: how should visual evidence be represented for item difficulty prediction? We compare question text alone, visual textualization, which expresses visual evidence in language, and image-native modeling, which retains the original image. Using Eedi items with difficulty calibrated from student responses, we train large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) directly for difficulty regression. Both visual interfaces achieve the lowest point estimates, although the leading systems cannot be reliably ordered. Open-VLM textualization yields lower RMSE point estimates for all evaluated LLMs, while broader adaptation does so for all image-native VLMs. Test-time interventions show dependence on the paired full-item image, but do not isolate the additional visual component. The two visual interfaces also make partially complementary item-level errors and differ substantially in computational workflow. Thus, textualization should not be treated as the only practical interface: image-native modeling is a competitive alternative whose effectiveness depends on how the VLM is adapted.

Institutions increasingly rely on browser lockdown, webcam monitoring, and behavioral analytics to secure high-stakes digital assessments, yet these mechanisms are commonly designed and evaluated independently and often overlook learner accessibility. This paper introduces Behaviorally-Adaptive Visual Diversion (BAVD), a theoretical framework in which a synthetic, non-semantic visual field is composited with assessment content and adaptively modulated according to observed candidate behavior. The underlying assessment content is never altered; only its visual presentation is modified to reduce the usefulness of unauthorized screen capture or screen sharing while remaining minimally intrusive for legitimate candidates. The framework further incorporates an accessibility-aware attenuation mechanism that reduces or suppresses diversion intensity for candidates with approved visual-processing accommodations. We formulate the model using a coupled dynamical-systems representation comprising a Diversion Field Generator, Rendering Tensor, Behavior Tensor, Composite Integrity Functional, and Multi-dimensional Entropy Model, and establish theoretical properties for content fidelity, rendering stability, entropy boundedness, integrity tracking, and closed-loop adaptation stability. The framework explicitly states its threat model, identifies deployment assumptions and limitations, and discusses the trade-off between accessibility and capture resistance. This work provides a mathematically grounded foundation for behaviorally adaptive and accessibility-aware assessment delivery and offers a basis for future empirical validation in trusted digital assessment platforms.

Traditional static assessments rely on a subtractive, deficit-based grading model that often penalizes ambition and obscures diagnostic feedback. Conversely, traditional face-to-face oral examinations introduce severe construct-irrelevant variance by exacerbating performative anxiety and the sociological power imbalances inherent to academic hierarchies. This paper presents the theoretical foundation for the "Socratic Test," an automated, computer-mediated conversational assessment. By integrating Dynamic Assessment principles, multimodal workspaces, Bloom's Taxonomy for real-time proctoring, and the SOLO Taxonomy for structural evaluation, the Socratic Test actively maps a student's cognitive boundaries. This paper formalizes the use of graduated scaffolding to quantify the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and details a non-compensatory, additive grading architecture that prioritizes mastery over penalty and human-AI alignment to ensure unprecedented measurement reliability.

This full paper in the research-to-practice track presents methods for assessing student teams in tabletop exercises (TTXs). TTXs enable learner teams to prepare for workplace tasks and practice crisis responses, such as resolving cybersecurity incidents. While assessment is essential for determining how well teams achieve learning objectives, the complex, open-ended nature of TTXs often leads to delayed or incomplete feedback. TTX learning platforms can record teams' actions and communication; yet, leveraging these data to assess performance is underexplored. To address this gap, we compared two post-TTX team assessment methods -- clustering and large language models (LLMs) -- using an original dataset from 81 participants across two countries. We evaluated these methods against instructor-assigned scores based on standardized rubrics. Clustering grouped teams that approached TTX tasks similarly, enabling instructors to deliver faster, targeted feedback to teams within a cluster. This method was valid and reliable, with low computational requirements. LLMs used the standardized rubrics to assess teams' communication. While GPT-4o frequently disagreed with instructor scores, GPT-5.2 demonstrated considerably lower error. The researched methods have been integrated into INJECT, an open-source TTX learning platform, to support scalability and teaching practice. To encourage community adoption, we publicly share all datasets, software tools, and a full-fledged TTX scenario.

The deployment of Small Language Models (SLMs) in educational settings offers significant advantages in terms of privacy, cost, and scalability. However, SLMs often struggle with complex vision-based tasks, such as grading handwritten student exams, due to the high computational cost of processing large images and the visual distractions present on a full page. In this paper, we investigate whether cropping student responses using bounding boxes can improve the accuracy and computational efficiency of SLMs on a short-answer grading task. Using a dataset of scanned handwritten responses from the 2025 Australian Physics Olympiad, we evaluate the performance of several models ranging from 4B to 72B parameters under varying conditions of Chain of Thought (CoT) prompting and image cropping. Our results demonstrate that using bounding boxes significantly improves grading accuracy and reduces computational cost (FLOPs) across models. We conclude that bounding boxes are a crucial pre-processing step for deploying SLMs in large-scale, vision-based educational assessments.

Teaching videos are becoming a major medium for education, creating a growing need for scalable evaluation of their pedagogical quality. Existing automatic judges do not fully address this setting because teaching quality depends on multimodal evidence and should be evaluated with respect to the intended learner rather than as a universal property. We present EduPanel, a rubric-grounded, learner-conditioned LLM judge that decomposes evaluation across specialized agents to produce interpretable assessments for different aspects of teaching quality. Across expert studies, architecture ablations, and learner-persona analyses, EduPanel achieves reliability comparable to a median human expert. In expert evaluation, its feedback improves scoring accuracy (MAE 0.87 to 0.73), while experts remain able to detect unreliable outputs (AUC = 0.77) instead of accepting them blindly. These results suggest that EduPanel can serve as effective assistants for educational evaluation rather than replacements for human experts.

Multilingual assessment systems commonly rely on translation for scoring and quality-control processes. We evaluate whether multilingual sentence embeddings can replace translated English input for Linguistic-Integrated Reliability Auditing (LiRA) across 11 PIRLS constructed-response items and three embedding models. Native-language embeddings reproduced translation-based reliability estimates closely while recovering responses excluded after translation failure, with no meaningful change in reliability.

Increasingly, speech and language processing tasks take either audio or text directly rather than extracting features from these as the input to the classifier or regressor. Often these systems make use of complex, for example transformer-based, processes that have the ability to derive highly non-linear mappings between the input and the output. Unfortunately these systems can also learn ''shortcuts'' where the classifier is overly reliant on particular aspects of the input to yield the output. For the task of language proficiency assessment, this over-reliance can enable learners to increase their score by exploiting the shortcut rather than improving their ability. This paper introduces a novel training criterion that is able to reduce the classifier's reliance on shortcuts, thus for example limiting this option for malpractice in language assessment. This process is illustrated on two forms of assessment system, one based on the audio the other on the speech recognition text. The results show that, for both systems, there is higher correlations with features that could be exploited for malpractice than expected from the human reference, indicating an over-reliance on these features. By introducing the modified training criterion, this correlation can be reduced to be closer to the reference correlation.

This study examines the cross-prompt generalization and first-language (L1) scoring effects of a LoRA-adapted open-weight large language model (Gemma-3-27B-it) applied to automated essay scoring. Using the identical model and inference configuration reported in "AiAWE: An Open-Source LLM Automated Writing Evaluation System Using LoRA-Adapted Instruction-Tuned Models" (Gayed, 2026), which was fine-tuned on 480 argumentative essays from two prompts, we evaluate scoring accuracy on the full TOEFL11 corpus: 12,100 essays written by test-takers from 11 first-language backgrounds across eight prompts, none of which were seen during training. The model's raw scores (0.5-5.0) are mapped to the same three proficiency bands (low, medium, high) used by ETS, enabling direct comparison. The model achieved an overall band agreement of 77.79% and a quadratic weighted kappa of 0.702, with adjacent-band agreement of 99.98%. Accuracy was stable across all eight unseen prompts, with no advantage for prompts thematically related to the training data, indicating robust cross-prompt generalization. However, the model exhibited a systematic, L1-linked scoring offset. Within every proficiency band, essays from European-language backgrounds received consistently higher scores than essays from East-Asian-language backgrounds, a pattern not attributable to the composition of the fine-tuning data. This is the first large-scale L1 fairness analysis of a fine-tuned open-weight LLM for automated essay scoring.

This study examines feedback in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing contexts, focusing on written corrective feedback (WCF). Large language models (LLMs) can provide WCF at scale, but aligning them with pedagogical best practices remains an ongoing challenge. WCF meeting criteria like factuality or relevance may still be unsuitable for learning contexts, highlighting the need for extrinsic evaluation based on the learner's perspective. We deployed WCF systems in a university-level EFL class with nearly 2,000 students, collecting over 20,000 drafts. We evaluated the generated WCF from two perspectives: intrinsic evaluation by experienced English teachers using a rubric, and extrinsic evaluation via student feedback and engagement metrics. Results revealed low alignment between teacher expert ratings and student feedback. These findings suggest that traditional expert evaluation alone may not fully capture WCF's usability or helpfulness from the learner's perspective, highlighting the importance of learner-centered evaluation frameworks for AI-based applications in language education.

Automated essay scoring (AES) research has largely focused on cross-prompt generalization, where essays from unseen prompts are scored while the scoring criteria are typically held constant. In practice, however, educators may revise or even introduce new rubrics in their scoring task, to evaluate different aspects of essays. We study cross-rubric generalization: training on essays labeled under one set of rubrics and evaluating on previously unseen rubrics, which target different aspects of the essay. We use a Large Language Model (LLM) fine-tuning framework with two components: rubric-agnostic intermediate representations, called traits, and target-essay supervision under seen rubrics during training. On an AES dataset augmented with multiple rubric-defined labels of student critical thinking skills, we find that traits improve macro F1 by 5.0% over a baseline without traits in the hardest setting, where both target rubrics and target essays are unseen during training. We further find that increasing target-essay supervision improves performance, with our best fine-tuned open-source Llama-based model outperforming GPT-5-mini prompting by 2.1% macro F1 and trailing GPT-5 by 1.9%. These results show that trait-based intermediate structure and controlled supervision improve generalization to unseen rubrics.

High-stakes English proficiency tests treat standardized, unaided performance as evidence for score interpretations about academic English proficiency. This interpretation remains meaningful, but as target language use domains increasingly involve generative AI, the extrapolation from unaided test performance to academic communicative readiness becomes less self-evident. This conceptual validity argument reframes AI as a score-interpretation problem in high-stakes language testing, not only an operational issue of scoring, feedback, security, or misconduct. Synthesizing current literature in three uneven layers, the paper shows that most work treats AI as assessment infrastructure, while far less theorizes its implications for construct validity and extrapolation warrants. It defines AI-mediated construct drift as the misalignment that arises when communicative abilities required in the target domain change through AI mediation while test constructs remain anchored to an unaided-performance model. It proposes bounded AI mediation as a validity-oriented design principle: a standardized condition in which all test takers access the same institutionally controlled AI assistant, with predefined assistance boundaries, logged interactions, and tasks that distinguish comprehension support from answer generation. The paper argues that score interpretations should be narrowed and supplemented when used to support claims about AI-mediated academic communication.

Large language models now score near ceiling on general benchmarks, but these aggregate measures reveal little about how models behave within single disciplines. Existing art-focused evaluations rely on synthetic questions and rarely report item-level properties. This paper introduces EduArt, an educational-level benchmark for art-historical knowledge and visual reasoning in multimodal LLMs. EduArt comprises 871 human-authored questions from Italian secondary-school exercises and US Advanced Placement Art History exams, spanning two languages and seven formats from multiple choice to in-text word placement and error identification. Twelve models from six provider families were evaluated under a default answer-only condition and a motivation condition requiring written justification, and characterized using Classical Test Theory and a logistic regression isolating the effects of format, language, image presence, and model. The benchmark showed strong psychometric properties (mean discrimination 0.514, 82.3 percent good discriminators), while multiple-choice accuracy saturated near ceiling for six models, showing recognition formats alone cannot distinguish frontier models. Format was a strong independent predictor of accuracy: models exceeding 94 percent on multiple choice fell to 23.9 percent on open completion (Claude Opus 4.6) and 6.2 percent on error identification (Claude Sonnet 4.6). The motivation condition changed accuracy in a predominantly negative, family-dependent direction. These dissociations indicate that art-historical knowledge and the ability to deploy it are distinct capabilities, and that single-format benchmarks overestimate what models can reliably do. Mapping this capability profile is a precondition for responsible use of multimodal LLMs in art-historical scholarship, where tasks demand producing and manipulating content rather than selecting from fixed options.

This work introduces AIriskEval-edu-db2, a new dataset designed to train and evaluate auditors based on LLMs for an explainable pedagogical risk assessment in instructional content for grades K-12. The dataset comprises 1,639 explanations from 170 curated ScienceQA questions, covering science, language arts, and social sciences. For each question, the dataset includes an explanation written by a human teacher alongside 11 explanations generated by LLM-simulated teacher profiles associated with distinct pedagogical risks. We propose a comprehensive risk rubric aligned with established educational standards that covers five complementary dimensions: factual precision, depth and completeness, focus and relevance, student-level appropriateness, and ideological bias. A key contribution is the addition of 785 explanations with structured explainability annotations, including risk localization and risk description. The annotations are produced through a semi-automatic process with expert teacher validation. Finally, we present validation experiments comparing state-of-the-art proprietary models with a lightweight local Llama 3.1 8B model in both the pedagogical risk detection and the explainability assessment. These experiments evaluate whether supervised fine-tuning on AIriskEval-edu-db2 enables a locally deployable model to approach or outperform stronger frontier models while preserving privacy in educational auditing and assessment tasks.

The research proposes a multilayer Q-matrix-embedded neural network for cognitive diagnosis (M-QCDNet), which integrates the structural interpretability of cognitive diagnostic models (CDMs) with the deep learning neural network (NN). M-QCDNet structures the item-skill relationship using the Q-matrix as a structural prior, ensuring latent mastery profiles remain interpretable and consistent with cognitive theory, followed by the proposed loss function with an L2 penalty to penalize skills not aligned with the Q-matrix and to balance predictive performance and structural alignment. Corresponding evaluation matrices, the interpretable alignment-based metrics that quantify the degree to which predicted skill activations correspond to item-level skills, were further developed. M-QCDNet offers practical benefits for classroom practice, enabling early detection of learning difficulties and supporting mastery-based interventions. By embedding diagnostic validity into model design, M-QCDNet bridges psychometric transparency and neural flexibility, advancing interpretable, fair, and actionable AI for cognitive diagnostics.

As computing education expands beyond traditional programming into operational domains such as systems administration and command-line environments, existing pedagogical frameworks struggle to capture a dimension that is critical in these contexts: the real-world consequences of learner actions. Existing cognitive taxonomies classify learning objectives by mental operations but do not account for system impact, leaving a critical gap in command-line education where conceptually simple commands can have severe consequences. This work presents CogTax, a four-level cognitive taxonomy that integrates two dimensions: cognitive complexity, derived from Bloom's Revised Taxonomy, and operational impact, which distinguishes observational, reversible, structural, and administrative operations. The four progressive levels range from safe read-only inspection to advanced system management requiring integration of multiple abstract models. Then, the taxonomy level is defined as the maximum of these dimensions, ensuring that both conceptual understanding and operational awareness are addressed. CogTax gives instructors a principled framework for sequencing course material and calibrating assessment difficulty, and gives students an explicit reference for self-assessment and gap identification. To demonstrate that taxonomy levels are automatically assignable, making the framework scalable without manual expert annotation, a classifier that combines syntactic representations derived from abstract syntax trees with semantic embeddings is trained. Evaluated on 585 expert-annotated Linux/bash commands, this combined approach achieves 89% accuracy, outperforming either representation alone, and demonstrates cross-language extensibility through structural equivalences across command languages.