Educational Assessment

Accurate estimates of item difficulty are essential for valid assessment and effective adaptive learning. However, for newly created tasks, response data are typically unavailable. Pretesting and expert judgement can be costly and slow, while machine learning methods often require large labelled training datasets. Recent work suggests that large language models (LLMs) may help. However, there is limited evidence on the elicitation procedures and prompt configurations used to emulate experts for difficulty estimation. This study addresses this gap by evaluating three off-the-shelf LLMs as difficulty raters for newly created items without access to response data. Using an item bank from an online learning system, the study examined 6 domains of primary-school mathematics, with empirical difficulty estimates treated as empirical reference. The study used a full factorial design crossing three factors: judgement format (absolute vs pairwise), decision type (hard decisions vs token-probability-based estimates), and prompting strategy (zero-shot vs few-shot). LLM-derived difficulty estimates were compared with empirical difficulties using Spearman rank correlations. Across domains, LLM-based estimates exhibited moderate to strong positive correlations with empirical item difficulties. For simpler arithmetic tasks, some configurations approached the upper end of the accuracy range reported for human experts in previous research. Pairwise comparison consistently outperformed absolute judgement in the absence of additional refinements. However, when token-level probabilities were incorporated and examples of items with known empirical difficulty were provided, the absolute judgement configuration likewise demonstrated moderate-to-high alignment. The study positions LLMs as a promising tool for initial item calibration and offers insights into effective workflow configuration.

Item difficulty must often be estimated before test administration, when no responses are yet available for calibration. While most response-free difficulty modelling approaches derive item-text features by hand for a separate statistical model, we fine-tune a transformer end-to-end on the wording, avoiding the theory-based feature design and the preprocessing that discards information. We address reading-comprehension multiple-choice items, whose difficulty depends on inferential demands spanning passage, question, and options, yet the simplest model sees one undifferentiated sequence and is trained on difficulty alone. We introduce and investigate two extensions to the joint-encoding baseline: a component-wise variant, which encodes the wording parts separately, and a multi-task variant, which adds an auxiliary task of question answering. We compare the methods across three training-set sizes sampled from a corpus of nearly 30,000 items whose labels approximate response-based Rasch difficulty. At the smallest training size, both extensions improve on the baseline, the multi-task variant across every metric, and component-wise encoding in rank ordering. Further research may ground the auxiliary supervision in observed responses and extend the approach to other item types.

Assessing learner competency in clinical simulation requires expert observation that is time-intensive, difficult to scale, and subject to inter-rater variability. Vision-language models have emerged as a promising tool for understanding complex visual behavior. In this work, we investigate whether visual observations can provide educationally meaningful signals for competency assessment through a three-stage framework that (1) extracts action timelines from egocentric nursing simulation video using frozen visual encoders and few-shot learning, (2) derives sequence-level features and per-session recognition metrics, and (3) relates these to instructor-rated competency. Across 22 densely annotated sessions (3.8 hours, 493 actions), a frozen DINOv2 backbone with HMM Viterbi decoding achieves 57.4% MOF in leave-one-out 1-shot recognition. Surprisingly, we observe a negative trend between recognition accuracy and competency (rho = -0.524, p = 0.012 for mIoU), robust to six confound controls: more competent students produce diverse, harder-to-classify workflows, while simple sequence features show no such relationship. Per-item analysis identifies patient safety protocols and team communication as the expected behaviors most reflected in this pattern, and process model comparisons reveal that higher-competency students exhibit more protocol-consistent action transitions. These findings suggest that recognition accuracy may complement predicted action timelines as a pedagogically informative signal in automated competency assessment.

Effective tutoring requires distinguishing optimal, valid but suboptimal, and incorrect student solutions, a distinction central to intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) but untested for LLM-based tutors. As LLMs are increasingly explored as conversational complements to ITS, evaluating their diagnostic precision is essential. We present a benchmark of seven LLM feedback agents in propositional logic using knowledge-graph-derived ground truth across 10,836 solution--feedback pairs and three feedback conditions. Models achieved near-ceiling performance on optimal steps but systematically over-rejected valid but suboptimal reasoning and over-validated incorrect solutions, precisely where adaptive tutoring matters most. These failures persisted across models regardless of solution context, suggesting architectural rather than informational limits. Moreover, accurate diagnosis did not reliably produce pedagogically actionable feedback, revealing a gap between diagnostic judgment and instructional effectiveness. Our findings suggest that LLMs are better suited for hybrid architectures where KG-grounded models handle diagnosis while LLMs support open-ended scaffolding and dialogue.

Generative AI increasingly supports educational design tasks, e.g., through Large Language Models (LLMs), demonstrating the capability to design assessment questions that are aligned with pedagogical frameworks (e.g., Bloom's taxonomy). However, they often rely on subjective or limited evaluation methods; focus primarily on proprietary models; or rarely systematically examine generation, evaluation, or deployment constraints in real educational settings. Meanwhile, Small Language Models (SLMs) have emerged as local alternatives that better address privacy and resource limitations; yet their effectiveness for assessment tasks remains underexplored. To address this gap, we systematically compare LLMs and SLMs for assessment question design; evaluate generation quality across Bloom's taxonomy levels using reproducible, pedagogically grounded metrics; and further assess model-based judging against expert-informed evaluation by analyzing reliability and agreement patterns. Results show that SLMs achieve competitive performance across key pedagogically motivated quality dimensions while enabling local, privacy-sensitive deployment. However, model-based evaluations also exhibit systematic inconsistencies and bias relative to expert ratings. These findings provide evidence to posit language models as bounded assistants in assessment workflows; underscore the necessity of Human-in-the-Loop; and advance the automated educational question generation field by examining quality, reliability, and deployment-aware trade-offs.

Language agents are increasingly deployed in professional workflows, yet tutoring remains a high-stakes capability that existing evaluations only partially capture. Effective tutor agents require more than producing correct answers or executing accurate tool calls: they must infer a warranted teaching decision from evidence, adapt support as learner state changes, and carry an instructor's request through a learning-management system (LMS) to a completed, verified intervention. We introduce TeachArena, a source-grounded benchmark that jointly evaluates three complementary surfaces of teaching work: professional pedagogical judgment, situated multi-turn tutoring, and end-to-end LMS teaching workflows. Its 354 audited tasks are each built around a pedagogical insight, grounded in evidence, and evaluated with matched verifiers over observable turn-level responses, tutoring trajectories, and persistent artifacts or environment states. Across a comprehensive evaluation of frontier models, our findings reveal that current models are generally capable of bounded pedagogical judgment, but still fall short of professional teaching standards in situated tutoring and end-to-end teaching-workflow execution. By unifying teacher judgment, adaptive tutoring, and institutional action in one auditable benchmark, TEACHARENA provides a measurement foundation for developing tutor agents that can support realistic teaching work.

Automatic generation of educational materials using large language models (LLMs) is becoming increasingly common, but assigning difficulty levels to such materials still requires substantial human effort. LLM-as-a-Judge has therefore attracted attention, yet disagreement with human raters remains a major challenge. We propose a method for predicting which LLM-generated difficulty ratings are likely to disagree with human raters, so that such cases can be sent for re-rating. Unlike prior approaches, our method does not rely on generation-time probability signals, which must be collected during rating generation and are often difficult to compare across LLMs. Instead, exploiting the fact that difficulty is an ordinal scale, we use a separate embedding space, such as ModernBERT, and identify disagreement candidates based on the geometric consistency of the rating set. Experiments on English CEFR-based sentence difficulty assessment with GPT-OSS-120B and Qwen3-235B-A22B showed that the proposed method achieved higher AUC for predicting disagreement with human raters than probability-based baselines.

Authentic school examinations provide a high-validity test bed for evaluating multimodal large language models (MLLMs), yet benchmarks grounded in Japanese K-12 assessments remain scarce. We present a multimodal dataset constructed from Japan's National Assessment of Academic Ability, comprising officially released middle-school items in Science, Mathematics, and Japanese Language. Unlike existing benchmarks based on synthetic or curated data, our dataset preserves real exam layouts, diagrams, and Japanese educational text, together with nationwide aggregated student response distributions (N $\approx$ 900{,}000). These features enable direct comparison between human and model performance under a unified evaluation framework. We benchmark recent multimodal LLMs using exact-match accuracy and character-level F1 for open-ended responses, observing substantial variation across subjects and strong sensitivity to visual reasoning demands. Human evaluation and LLM-as-judge analyses further assess the reliability of automatic scoring. Our dataset establishes a reproducible, human-grounded benchmark for multimodal educational reasoning and supports future research on evaluation, feedback generation, and explainable AI in authentic assessment contexts. Our dataset is available at: https://github.com/KyosukeTakami/gakucho-benchmark

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in K-12 education, yet existing benchmarks such as C-Eval, CMMLU, GaokaoBench, and EduEval mainly evaluate factual recall through exam-style question answering. Effective educational AI additionally requires curriculum cognition: understanding how knowledge is structured through prerequisite chains, concept taxonomies, experiment-concept links, and pedagogical sequencing. To address this gap, we introduce K12-KGraph, a curriculum-aligned knowledge graph extracted from official People's Education Press textbooks across mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology from primary to high school. The graph contains seven node types (Concept, Skill, Experiment, Exercise, Section, Chapter, Book) and nine relation types covering taxonomy, prerequisite, association, verification, assessment, location, and order. Based on this graph, we construct two resources: (1) K12-Bench, a 23,640-question multi-select benchmark spanning five graph-derived task families (Ground, Prereq, Neighbor, Evidence, and Locate); and (2) K12-Train, a KG-guided supervised fine-tuning corpus of approximately 2,300 QA pairs synthesized from graph structure and node attributes. Experiments reveal substantial deficiencies in curriculum cognition: on K12-Bench, Gemini-3-Flash achieves only 57% exact match, while the best open-source model, Gemma-4-31B-IT, reaches 46%. Under a strictly matched 2,300-sample SFT budget on Qwen3-4B-Base and Llama-3.1-8B-Base, K12-Train consistently outperforms equally sized subsets from eight mainstream instruction-tuning corpora on both GaokaoBench and EduEval, demonstrating that curriculum-structured supervision is highly sample-efficient for educational tuning. We release the graph, benchmark, training data, and full construction pipeline.

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.

Multiple-choice reasoning benchmarks face dual challenges: rapid saturation from advancing models and data contamination that undermines static evaluations. Ad-hoc hardening methods (paraphrasing, perturbation) attempt to increase difficulty but sacrifice logical validity for surface complexity, falling short to challenge advanced reasoning models. We present LogiHard, a formal framework that deterministically transforms 0-order selection into 2-order logical judgment, which significantly increases the thinking overhead and reasoning steps. The framework integrates Item Response Theory (IRT) for computerized adaptive testing (CAT), enabling precise difficulty control with fewer questions than static benchmarks. We instantiate LogiHard-2k, a logical reasoning dataset constructed by cognitively ranking high-stakes examination questions via 9-dimensional analysis of model thinking traces, followed by combinatorial transformation of high-difficulty items. Evaluation across twelve state-of-the-art models reveals an accuracy degradation ranging from 31% to 56% on combinatorially hardened questions. LLMs suffer from the multi-select failure and early exit bias, which are not shared by human testees. Zero-shot transfer to MMLU demonstrates 47% accuracy degradation (89.84% to 42.86%), confirming applicability across domains with provable validity preservation. The consistent aggregate degeneration is domain-agnostic and stems not from knowledge deficits but from a combinatorial reasoning gap, reflecting a training-induced completeness-verification deficit.

This intervention study investigates the use of counterarguments in writing for critical thinking by students in the context of Generative AI (GenAI). This is especially as risks of cheating and cognitive offloading exist with the use of GenAI. We presented 36 students in a particular university course with 4 carefully selected thesis statements (from a set of popular debates) to write about anyone of them. We used six established rubrics (focus, logic, content, style, correctness and reference) to conduct three human assessments (two student peer-reviews and one experienced teacher) per writeup on a 5-point Likert scale for all the qualified samples (n) of 35 submissions (after disqualifying one for irregularity). Using the same rubrics and guidelines, we also assessed the submissions using six frontier LLMs as judges. Our mixed-method design included qualitative open-ended feedback per assessment and quantitative methods. The results reveal that (1) the students' self-written counterarguments to AI-generated content contains logic, among other things, which is a key component of critical thinking, and (2) GenAI can be successfully used at scale to assess students' written work, based on clear rubrics, and these assessments generally align with human assessments as shown with Gwets AC2 inter-rater reliability values of 0.33 for all the models except one.

As Competency-Based Education (CBE) is gaining traction around the world, the shift from marks-based assessment to qualitative competency mapping is a manual challenge for educators. This paper tackles the bottleneck issue by suggesting a "Human-in-the-Loop" benchmarking framework to assess the effectiveness of multiple LLMs in automating secondary-level mathematics assessment. Based on the Grade 10 Optional Mathematics curriculum in Nepal, we created a multi-dimensional rubric for four topics and four cross-cutting competencies: Comprehension, Knowledge, Operational Fluency, and Behavior and Correlation. The multi-provider ensemble, consisted of open-weight models -- Eagle (Llama 3.1-8B) and Orion (Llama 3.3-70B) -- and proprietary frontier models Nova (Gemini 2.5 Flash) and Lyra (Gemini 3 Pro), was benchmarked against a ground truth defined by two senior mathematics faculty members (kappa_w = 0.8652). The findings show a marked "Architecture-compatibility gap". Although the Gemini-based Mixture-of-Experts (Sparse MoE) models achieved "Fair Agreement" (kappa_w ~ 0.38), the larger Orion (70B) model exhibited "No Agreement" (kappa_w = -0.0261), suggesting that architectural compliance with instruction constraints outweighs the scale of raw parameters in rubric-constrained tasks. We conclude that while LLMs are not yet suitable for autonomous certification, they provide high-value assistive support for preliminary evidence extraction within a "Human-in-the-Loop" framework.

Educational NLP systems are typically evaluated using engagement metrics and satisfaction surveys, which are at best a proxy for meeting pedagogical goals. We introduce six computational metrics for automated evaluation of pedagogical alignment in student-AI dialogue. We validate our metrics through analysis of 12,650 messages across 500 conversations from four courses. Using our metrics, we identify a fundamental misalignment: educators design conversational tutors for sustained learning dialogue, but students mainly use them for answer-extraction. Deployment context is the strongest predictor of usage patterns, outweighing student preference or system design: when AI tools are optional, usage concentrates around deadlines; when integrated into course structure, students ask for solutions to verbatim assignment questions. Whole-dialogue evaluation misses these turn-by-turn patterns. Our metrics will enable researchers building educational dialogue systems to measure whether they are achieving their pedagogical goals.

The rapid uptake of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education is reshaping assessment practices and intensifying concerns around academic integrity, fairness, and learning quality. While institutional responses increasingly emphasise policy guidance and ethical principles, there remains limited formal understanding of how collective norms of responsible or opportunistic AI use emerge and stabilise within student cohorts. This paper reframes student AI use in assessment as a coordination problem shaped by peer expectations and assessment design rather than individual compliance alone. We develop a coordination-based evolutionary game-theoretic framework that captures learning value, effort, perceived fairness, and transparency, with institutional AI governance modelled implicitly through reflective assessment incentives. We use analytical results and finite-population simulations to reveal threshold-driven behavioural transitions in student AI use: small, well-calibrated changes in reflective assessment incentives can trigger rapid shifts towards responsible, learning-oriented AI-use norms, whereas weak or misaligned incentives allow opportunistic practices to persist. These non-linear dynamics explain why policy statements alone often fail to change behaviour, while modest assessment redesigns can have disproportionate effects. By providing a mechanism-level account of how assessment structures shape collective AI-use practices, this work offers higher education institutions an analytically grounded tool for Future Facing Learning, supporting proportionate, pedagogy-led AI governance without reliance on surveillance or punitive enforcement.

Automatic Bloom's taxonomy classification of assessment questions can substantially reduce instructor workload, but labeling is subjective and teacher-dependent. Prior machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) approaches reported strong within-dataset results, yet were rarely evaluated in cross-dataset settings, leaving real-world generalizability unclear; meanwhile, LLM effectiveness for Bloom question classification has not been systematically studied. We evaluated the cross-dataset generalization of existing ML/DL methods and assessed LLMs with multiple prompting strategies on five datasets; the best prompting strategy combined in-context examples with course-specific action verbs. Supervised ML/DL models degraded substantially on unseen datasets, whereas LLMs were more stable, suggesting a robust alternative across diverse educational contexts. Based on the best prompting strategy, we also presented a lightweight UI that supports instructors in automatically classifying large question banks; a usability study indicated low workload and high usability.

We present ActuBench, a multi-agent LLM pipeline for the automated generation and evaluation of advanced actuarial assessment items aligned with the International Actuarial Association (IAA) Education Syllabus. The pipeline separates four LLM roles by adapter: one agent drafts items, one constructs distractors, a third independently verifies both stages and drives bounded one-shot repair loops, and a cost-optimized auxiliary agent handles Wikipedia-note summarization and topic labelling. The items, per-model responses and complete leaderboard are published as a browsable web interface at https://actubench.de/en/, allowing readers and practitioners to inspect individual items without a repository checkout. We evaluate 50 language models from eight providers on two complementary benchmarks -- 100 empirically hardest multiple-choice items and 100 open-ended items scored by an LLM judge -- and report three headline findings. First, multi-agent verification is load-bearing: the independent verifier flags a majority of drafted items on first pass, most of which the one-shot repair loop resolves. Second, locally-hosted open-weights inference sits on the cost-performance Pareto front: a Gemma~4 model running on consumer hardware and a Cerebras-hosted 120B open-weights model dominate the near-zero-cost region, with the latter within one item of the top of the leaderboard. Third, MCQ and LLM-as-Judge rankings differ meaningfully: the MCQ scaffold inflates the performance ceiling, and Judge-mode evaluation is needed to discriminate at the frontier.

Automated essay scoring (AES) is commonly evaluated on public benchmarks using quadratic weighted kappa (QWK). However, because benchmark labels are assigned by human raters and inevitably contain scoring errors, it remains unclear both what QWK is theoretically attainable and what level is practically sufficient for deployment. We therefore derive two dataset-specific QWK ceilings based on the reliability concept in classical test theory, which can be estimated from standard two-rater benchmarks without additional annotation. The first is the theoretical ceiling: the maximum QWK that an ideal AES model that perfectly predicts latent true scores can achieve under label noise. The second is the human-like ceiling: the QWK attainable by an AES model with human-level scoring error, providing a practical target when AES is intended to replace a single human rater. We further show that human--human QWK, often used as a ceiling reference, can underestimate the true ceiling. Simulation experiments validate the proposed ceilings, and experiments on real benchmarks illustrate how they clarify the current performance and remaining headroom of modern AES models.

Intelligent tutoring systems increasingly provide automated feedback on student work, but robust feedback requires assessing reasoning, not only final answers. We study a failure mode we call the correct answer trap (CAT): models under-detect misconceptions when students reach a correct answer via flawed reasoning. Analysing real student responses from the Eedi mathematics platform, we show that 71% of these failures concentrate in just two question types, both sharing a common structure where flawed reasoning happens to produce the correct numerical answer. Comparing a fine-tuned T5 with a frontier large language model, we find that improved capabilities reduce but do not eliminate the problem (84% vs 57% detection accuracy). Even the best-performing model generates roughly four false alarms for every genuine detection, making stand-alone screening impractical at realistic class sizes. Our findings demonstrate that high overall accuracy can mask critical failures in reasoning assessment, and that careful analysis of student reasoning still benefits from human judgment.

Automated scoring models are increasingly used to assign rubric-based quality ratings to complex language performances, including classroom transcripts, yet they typically provide little insight into why a particular score is produced. We propose a general framework for sentence-level interpretability of rubric-based scoring that combines model-agnostic Shapley-value attributions with rationales generated by large language models (LLMs). Instantiated on the Quality of Feedback dimension of the CLASS framework using the NCTE corpus, the framework enables systematic comparison of fine-tuned pretrained language models (PLMs) and prompted LLMs on both scoring performance and explanation faithfulness. Across 6k annotated transcript segments, fine-tuned PLMs outperform LLMs in prediction accuracy but exhibit label compression toward mid-scale scores. Deletion-based tests show that SHAP identifies sentences that reliably drive model predictions, producing typically larger and more coherent prediction shifts than LLM-generated rationales. Cross-model analyses further reveal that SHAP attributions transfer robustly across architectures, whereas LLM rationales exert limited and inconsistent influence. Overall, the findings demonstrate that SHAP provides more faithful and transferable explanations for rubric-based scoring, and that the proposed framework offers a principled basis for evaluating both scoring models and their explanations in high-stakes educational settings and other rubric-based language assessment tasks.

Academic integrity continues to face the persistent challenge of examination cheating. Traditional invigilation relies on human observation, which is inefficient, costly, and prone to errors at scale. Although some existing AI-powered monitoring systems have been deployed and trusted, many lack transparency or require multi-layered architectures to achieve the desired performance. To overcome these challenges, we propose an improvement over a simple two-stage framework for exam cheating detection that integrates object detection and behavioral analysis using well-known technologies. First, the state-of-the-art YOLOv8n model is used to localize students in exam-room images. Each detected region is cropped and preprocessed, then classified by a fine-tuned RexNet-150 model as either normal or cheating behavior. The system is trained on a dataset compiled from 10 independent sources with a total of 273,897 samples, achieving 0.95 accuracy, 0.94 recall, 0.96 precision, and 0.95 F1-score - a 13% increase over a baseline accuracy of 0.82 in video-based cheating detection. In addition, with an average inference time of 13.9 ms per sample, the proposed approach demonstrates robustness and scalability for deployment in large-scale environments. Beyond the technical contribution, the AI-assisted monitoring system also addresses ethical concerns by ensuring that final outcomes are delivered privately to individual students after the examination, for example, via personal email. This prevents public exposure or shaming and offers students an opportunity to reflect on their behavior. For further improvement, it is possible to incorporate additional factors, such as audio data and consecutive frames, to achieve greater accuracy. This study provides a foundation for developing real-time, scalable, ethical, and open-source solutions.

Instructional alignment, the match between intended cognition and enacted activity, is central to effective instruction but hard to operationalize at scale. We examine alignment in cybersecurity simulations using multimodal traces from 23 teams (76 students) across five exercise sessions. Study 1 codes objectives and team emails with Bloom's taxonomy and models the completion of key exercise tasks with generalized linear mixed models. Alignment, defined as the discrepancy between required and enacted Bloom levels, predicts success, whereas the Bloom category alone does not predict success once discrepancy is considered. Study 2 compares predictive feature families using grouped cross-validation and l1-regularized logistic regression. Text embeddings and log features outperform Bloom-only models (AUC0.74 and 0.71 vs. 0.55), and their combination performs best (Test AUC0.80), with Bloom frequencies adding little. Overall, the work offers a measure of alignment for simulations and shows that multimodal traces best forecast performance, while alignment provides interpretable diagnostic insight.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for automated assessment and feedback, understanding when LLM marking is valid is essential. We evaluate LLM-as-a-judge marking across three physics assessment formats - structured questions, written essays, and scientific plots - comparing GPT-5.2, Grok 4.1, Claude Opus 4.5, DeepSeek-V3.2, Gemini Pro 3, and committee aggregations against human markers under blind, solution-provided, false-solution, and anchored conditions. We distinguish absolute accuracy from rank-order agreement, since a marking system can match the distribution of human marks while failing to order responses by quality. Across task types, performance is sharply task-dependent. For blind university exam questions ($n=771$) and secondary and university structured questions ($n=1151$), models show robust rank-order agreement with human markers (Spearman $ρ> 0.6$), with official solutions reducing error and strengthening agreement. False solutions degrade absolute accuracy, showing that models defer to provided references, but leave rank-ordering intact. Essay marking behaves fundamentally differently. Across $n=55$ scripts ($n=275$ essays), blind AI marking is harsher and more variable than human marking and adding a mark scheme does not improve rank-order agreement. Anchored exemplars shift the AI mean close to the human mean and compress variance below the human standard deviation, but rank-order agreement remains near-zero. For code-based plot elements ($n=1400$), models achieve high rank-order agreement ($ρ> 0.84$) with near-linear calibration. Across all task types, validity tracks the structure of the assessment task - the extent to which marks can be mapped to explicit, observable grading features - and the reliability of the human benchmark, rather than raw model capability.

Automated Essay Scoring systems disproportionately penalize high-proficiency English as a Second Language (ESL) learners. We propose Contrastive Learning with Matched Essay Pairs (CL-MEP), a bi-directional alignment strategy. CL-MEP reduces this scoring bias by 39.9% while improving overall accuracy, successfully disentangling valid syntactic complexity from surface-level grammatical errors.

We present Exposía, the first public dataset that connects writing and feedback in higher education, enabling research on educationally grounded computational approaches to teaching and evaluating academic writing. Exposía includes student research project proposals and peer and instructor feedback consisting of comments and free-text reviews. The dataset was collected in the "Introduction to Scientific Work" course of the Computer Science. Exposía reflects the multi-stage nature of the academic writing process that includes drafting, receiving feedback, and revising the writing based on the feedback received. Both the project proposals and peer feedback are accompanied by human assessment scores based on a fine-grained, pedagogically-grounded schema for writing and feedback assessment that we develop. We use Exposía to benchmark state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) on two tasks: automated scoring of (1) the proposals and (2) the student reviews. We find that the two tasks are best served by different LLMs. Furthermore, closed-source models consistently outperform open-weight models, motivating further research on improving the performance of open-weight models preferred in classroom settings. Finally, we establish that a prompting strategy that scores multiple aspects of the writing together is the most effective, paving the way for more effective classroom deployment of modern LLMs.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as OpenAI's ChatGPT are transforming the educational landscape, prompting reconsideration of traditional assessment practices. In parallel, universities are exploring alternatives to in-person, closed-book examinations, raising concerns about academic integrity and pedagogical alignment in uninvigilated settings. This study systematically investigates the performance of GenAI on typical mathematics questions from across a first-year mathematics curriculum. Adopting an empirical approach and utilising current examination questions as a proxy for course content, we generate, transcribe, and blind-mark GenAI submissions to eight undergraduate mathematics assessments, spanning the entirety of the first-year curriculum. By combining independent GenAI responses to individual questions, we enable a meaningful evaluation of GenAI performance, both at the level of modules and across the first-year curriculum. We find that GenAI attainment is at the level of a first-class degree, though current performance can vary between modules. Further, we find that GenAI performance is remarkably consistent when viewed across the entire curriculum, significantly more so than that of students in invigilated examinations. Our findings evidence the pressing need for redesigning assessments in mathematics in the era of generative artificial intelligence.

The rapid adoption of generative AI has created new opportunities for teaching, learning, and quality assurance. Existing applications, however, remain largely student-facing, with comparatively limited attention to institution-level needs. This paper presents a course intelligence platform deployed across more than 100 universities and serving over 10,000 instructors in China. By linking competency requirements, knowledge structures, teaching activities, and assessment evidence, it establishes a shared foundation for knowledge organization, instructional design, learning assessment, and quality evaluation. The course evaluation module is examined as a representative institution-facing application of the platform, which integrates national evaluation standards, structured educational evidence, customized prompting strategies, and domain-adapted LLMs to generate quantitative scores and qualitative feedback. A case study involving 100 authentic university courses is conducted to evaluate its alignment with expert judgments and the interpretability of its outputs. Statistical analyses show substantial agreement between AI-generated assessments and expert ratings, while qualitative results highlight the credibility of the feedback. The findings further suggest that AI-assisted evaluation requires not only capable models but also structured domain knowledge and transparent criteria. In this context, human ratings should be treated as an informative reference rather than an error-free gold standard, and the objective is to achieve consistent, interpretable, and defensible judgments instead of merely replicating expert scores.

This study employs cutting-edge wearable monitoring technology to conduct high-precision, high-temporal-resolution (1-second interval) cognitive load assessment on electroencephalogram (EEG) data from the FP1 channel and heart rate variability (HRV) data of secondary vocational students. By jointly analyzing these two critical physiological indicators, the research delves into their application value in assessing cognitive load among secondary vocational students and their utility across various tasks. The study designed two experiments to validate the efficacy of the proposed approach: Initially, a random forest classification model, developed using the N-BACK task, enabled the precise decoding of physiological signal characteristics in secondary vocational students under different levels of cognitive load, achieving a classification accuracy of 97%. Subsequently, this classification model was applied in a cross-task experiment involving the National Computer Rank Examination (Level-1), demonstrating the method's significant applicability and cross-task transferability in diverse learning contexts. Conducted with high portability, this research holds substantial theoretical and practical significance for optimizing teaching resource allocation in secondary vocational education, as well as for cognitive load assessment methods and monitoring. Currently, the research findings are undergoing trial implementation in the school.