Educational Assessment

AI in Education research increasingly relies on authentic, curriculum-grounded assessment data, yet large, well-structured exam corpora remain scarce for many languages and educational systems. We introduce RoMathExam, a longitudinal dataset of Romanian high-school mathematics exams spanning 1895-2025, with a robust standardized core for 1957-2025. The dataset contains 10,592 mathematics problems organized into 600+ complete exam sets across multiple tracks (M1-M4), covering both official national examination sessions and ministry-published training variants. Beyond high-fidelity digitization and a unified JSON schema with traceable provenance, RoMathExam is enriched with curriculum-aligned topic tags and dense text embeddings, enabling variant detection, deduplication, and similarity-based retrieval. To overcome the lack of historical psychometric data, we propose and validate a solution complexity metric as a scalable intrinsic proxy for difficulty. Our evaluation across three frontier reasoning models (GPT-5-mini, DeepSeek-R1, and Qwen3-235B-Thinking) reveals high cross-model synchronization (r > 0.72), confirming the metric's ability to isolate intrinsic mathematical depth from stochastic generation noise. We demonstrate the dataset's utility through a longitudinal analysis that quantifies a "regime shift" from volatile historical formats to a standardized, algebra-dominant modern curriculum. RoMathExam provides a foundation for reproducible research in difficulty modeling, curriculum analytics, and LLM evaluation in low-resource linguistic contexts.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in math education not only as problem solvers but also as assessors of learners' reasoning. However, it remains unclear whether stronger math problem-solving ability is associated with stronger step-level assessment performance. This study examines that relationship using the GSM8K and MATH subsets of PROCESSBENCH, a human-annotated benchmark for identifying the earliest erroneous step in mathematical reasoning. We evaluate two LLM-based math tutor agent settings, instantiated with GPT-4 and GPT-5, in two independent tasks on the same math problems: solving the original problem and assessing a benchmark-provided solution by predicting the earliest erroneous step. Results show a consistent within-model pattern: assessment accuracy is substantially higher on math problem items the same model solved correctly than on items it solved incorrectly, with statistically significant associations across both models and datasets. At the same time, assessment remains more difficult than direct problem solving, especially on error-present solutions. These findings suggest that math problem-solving expertise supports stronger assessment performance, but reliable step-level diagnosis also requires additional capabilities such as step tracking, monitoring, and precise error localization. The results have implications for the design and evaluation of AI-supported Adaptive Instructional Systems (AISs) for formative assessment in math education.

Assessing student handwritten scratchwork is crucial for personalized educational feedback but presents unique challenges due to diverse handwriting, complex layouts, and varied problem-solving approaches. Existing educational NLP primarily focuses on textual responses and neglects the complexity and multimodality inherent in authentic handwritten scratchwork. Current multimodal large language models (MLLMs) excel at visual reasoning but typically adopt an "examinee perspective", prioritizing generating correct answers rather than diagnosing student errors. To bridge these gaps, we introduce ScratchMath, a novel benchmark specifically designed for explaining and classifying errors in authentic handwritten mathematics scratchwork. Our dataset comprises 1,720 mathematics samples from Chinese primary and middle school students, supporting two key tasks: Error Cause Explanation (ECE) and Error Cause Classification (ECC), with seven defined error types. The dataset is meticulously annotated through rigorous human-machine collaborative approaches involving multiple stages of expert labeling, review, and verification. We systematically evaluate 16 leading MLLMs on ScratchMath, revealing significant performance gaps relative to human experts, especially in visual recognition and logical reasoning. Proprietary models notably outperform open-source models, with large reasoning models showing strong potential for error explanation. All evaluation data and frameworks are publicly available to facilitate further research.

High-quality teacher-child interaction (TCI) is fundamental to early childhood development, yet traditional expert-based assessment faces a critical scalability challenge. In large systems like China's-serving 36 million children across 250,000+ kindergartens-the cost and time requirements of manual observation make continuous quality monitoring infeasible, relegating assessment to infrequent episodic audits that limit timely intervention and improvement tracking. In this paper, we investigate whether AI can serve as a scalable assessment teammate by extracting structured quality indicators and validating their alignment with human expert judgments. Our contributions include: (1) TEPE-TCI-370h (Tracing Effective Preschool Education), the first large-scale dataset of naturalistic teacher-child interactions in Chinese preschools (370 hours, 105 classrooms) with standardized ECQRS-EC and SSTEW annotations; (2) We develop Interaction2Eval, a specialized LLM-based framework addressing domain-specific challenges-child speech recognition, Mandarin homophone disambiguation, and rubric-based reasoning-achieving up to 88% agreement; (3) Deployment validation across 43 classrooms demonstrating an 18x efficiency gain in the assessment workflow, highlighting its potential for shifting from annual expert audits to monthly AI-assisted monitoring with targeted human oversight. This work not only demonstrates the technical feasibility of scalable, AI-augmented quality assessment but also lays the foundation for a new paradigm in early childhood education-one where continuous, inclusive, AI-assisted evaluation becomes the engine of systemic improvement and equitable growth.

The rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in education raises profound challenges for assessment design. To adapt assessments to the presence of LLM-based tools, it is crucial to characterize the strengths and weaknesses of LLMs in a generalizable, valid and reliable manner. However, current LLM evaluations often rely on descriptive statistics derived from benchmarks, and little research applies theory-grounded measurement methods to characterize LLM capabilities relative to human learners in ways that directly support assessment design. Here, by combining educational data mining and psychometric theory, we introduce a statistically principled approach for identifying items on which humans and LLMs show systematic response differences, pinpointing where assessments may be most vulnerable to AI misuse, and which task dimensions make problems particularly easy or difficult for generative AI. The method is based on Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis -- traditionally used to detect bias across demographic groups -- together with negative control analysis and item-total correlation discrimination analysis. It is evaluated on responses from human learners and six leading chatbots (ChatGPT-4o & 5.2, Gemini 1.5 & 3 Pro, Claude 3.5 & 4.5 Sonnet) to two instruments: a high school chemistry diagnostic test and a university entrance exam. Subject-matter experts then analyzed DIF-flagged items to characterize task dimensions associated with chatbot over- or under-performance. Results show that DIF-informed analytics provide a robust framework for understanding where LLM and human capabilities diverge, and highlight their value for improving the design of valid, reliable, and fair assessment in the AI era.

The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in educational assessment has created new opportunities for scalable item creation, personalized feedback, and efficient formative evaluation. However, despite advances in taxonomy alignment and automated question generation, the absence of transparent, explainable, and certifiable mechanisms limits institutional and accreditation-level acceptance. This chapter proposes a comprehensive framework for explainability and certification of AI-generated assessment items, combining self-rationalization, attribution-based analysis, and post-hoc verification to produce interpretable cognitive-alignment evidence grounded in Bloom's and SOLO taxonomies. A structured certification metadata schema is introduced to capture provenance, alignment predictions, reviewer actions, and ethical indicators, enabling audit-ready documentation consistent with emerging governance requirements. A traffic-light certification workflow operationalizes these signals by distinguishing auto-certifiable items from those requiring human review or rejection. A proof-of-concept study on 500 AI-generated computer science questions demonstrates the framework's feasibility, showing improved transparency, reduced instructor workload, and enhanced auditability. The chapter concludes by outlining ethical implications, policy considerations, and directions for future research, positioning explainability and certification as essential components of trustworthy, accreditation-ready AI assessment systems.

Evaluating the grammatical competence of second language (L2) learners is essential both for providing targeted feedback and for assessing proficiency. To achieve this, we propose a novel framework leveraging the English Grammar Profile (EGP), a taxonomy of grammatical constructs mapped to the proficiency levels of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), to detect learners' attempts at grammatical constructs and classify them as successful or unsuccessful. This detection can then be used to provide fine-grained feedback. Moreover, the grammatical constructs are used as predictors of proficiency assessment by using automatically detected attempts as predictors of holistic CEFR proficiency. For the selection of grammatical constructs derived from the EGP, rule-based and LLM-based classifiers are compared. We show that LLMs outperform rule-based methods on semantically and pragmatically nuanced constructs, while rule-based approaches remain competitive for constructs that rely purely on morphological or syntactic features and do not require semantic interpretation. For proficiency assessment, we evaluate both rule-based and hybrid pipelines and show that a hybrid approach combining a rule-based pre-filter with an LLM consistently yields the strongest performance. Since our framework operates on pairs of original learner sentences and their corrected counterparts, we also evaluate a fully automated pipeline using automatic grammatical error correction. This pipeline closely approaches the performance of semi-automated systems based on manual corrections, particularly for the detection of successful attempts at grammatical constructs. Overall, our framework emphasises learners' successful attempts in addition to unsuccessful ones, enabling positive, formative feedback and providing actionable insights into grammatical development.

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 four settings spanning three assessment formats - structured questions, written essays, and scientific plots - comparing GPT-5.2, Grok 4.1, Claude Opus 4.5, DeepSeek-V3.2, Gemini 3 Pro, 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, each containing five essays ($n=275$ essays total), blind AI marking is harsher and more variable than human marking and adding marking guidance 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 ($ρ> 0.83$) with near-linear calibration. LLM marking validity depended strongly on the assessment task, and this held for every contemporary model tested. The results also show that the reliability of the human benchmark constrains the claims that can be made about AI-human agreement.

Digital handwriting acquisition enables the capture of detailed temporal and kinematic signals reflecting the motor processes underlying writing behavior. While handwriting analysis has been extensively explored in clinical or adult populations, its potential for studying developmental and educational characteristics in children remains less investigated. In this work, we examine whether handwriting dynamics encode information related to student characteristics using a large-scale online dataset collected from Japanese students from elementary school to junior high school. We systematically compare three families of handwriting-derived features: basic statistical descriptors of kinematic signals, entropy-based measures of variability, and parameters obtained from the sigma-lognormal model. Although the dataset contains dense stroke-level recordings, features are aggregated at the student level to enable a controlled comparison between representations. These features are evaluated across three prediction tasks: grade prediction, gender classification, and academic performance classification, using Linear or Logistic Regression and Random Forest models under consistent experimental settings. The results show that handwriting dynamics contain measurable signals related to developmental stage and individual differences, especially for the grade prediction task. These findings highlight the potential of kinematic handwriting analysis and confirm that through their development, children's handwriting evolves toward a lognormal motor organization.

Evaluating student responses, from long essays to short factual answers, is a key challenge in educational NLP. Automated Essay Scoring (AES) focuses on holistic writing qualities such as coherence and argumentation, while Automatic Short Answer Grading (ASAG) emphasizes factual correctness and conceptual understanding. Despite their shared goal, these paradigms have progressed in isolation with fragmented datasets, inconsistent metrics, and separate communities. We introduce S-GRADES (Studying Generalization of Student Response Assessments in Diverse Evaluative Settings), a web-based benchmark that consolidates 14 diverse grading datasets under a unified interface with standardized access and reproducible evaluation protocols. The benchmark is fully open-source and designed for extensibility, enabling continuous integration of new datasets and evaluation settings. To demonstrate the utility of S-GRADES, we evaluate three state-of-the-art large language models across the benchmark using multiple reasoning strategies in prompting. We further examine the effects of exemplar selection and cross-dataset exemplar transfer. Our analyses illustrate how benchmark-driven evaluation reveals reliability and generalization gaps across essay and short-answer grading tasks, highlighting the importance of standardized, cross-paradigm assessment.

The rapid integration of conversational AI systems into educational settings has intensified ethical concerns about academic integrity, fairness, and students' cognitive development. Institutional responses have largely centered on AI detection tools and restrictive policies, yet such approaches have proven unreliable and ethically contentious. This paper reframes AI misuse in education not primarily as a detection problem, but as a measurement problem rooted in the loss of visibility into the learning process. When AI enters the assessment loop, educators often retain access to final outputs but lose valuable insight into how those outputs were produced. Drawing on research in cognitive offloading, learning analytics, and multimodal timeline reconstruction, we propose the Learning Visibility Framework, grounded in three principles: clear specification and modeling of acceptable AI use, recognition of learning processes as assessable evidence alongside outcomes, and the establishment of transparent timelines of student activity. Rather than promoting surveillance, the framework emphasizes transparency and shared evidence as foundations for ethical AI integration in classroom settings. By shifting focus from adversarial detection toward process visibility, this work offers a principled pathway for aligning AI use with educational values while preserving trust and transparency between students and educators

Automated Essay Scoring (AES) has been explored for decades with the goal to support teachers by reducing grading workload and mitigating subjective biases. While early systems relied on handcrafted features and statistical models, recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have made it possible to evaluate student writing with unprecedented flexibility. This paper investigates the application of state-of-the-art open-weight LLMs for the grading of Austrian A-level German texts, with a particular focus on rubric-based evaluation. A dataset of 101 anonymised student exams across three text types was processed and evaluated. Four LLMs, DeepSeek-R1 32b, Qwen3 30b, Mixtral 8x7b and LLama3.3 70b, were evaluated with different contexts and prompting strategies. The LLMs were able to reach a maximum of 40.6% agreement with the human rater in the rubric-provided sub-dimensions, and only 32.8% of final grades matched the ones given by a human expert. The results indicate that even though smaller models are able to use standardised rubrics for German essay grading, they are not accurate enough to be used in a real-world grading environment.

This project investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to determine the difficulty of data visualization literacy test items. We explore whether features derived from item text (question and answer options), the visualization image, or a combination of both can predict item difficulty (proportion of correct responses) for U.S. adults. We use GPT-4.1-nano to analyze items and generate predictions based on these distinct feature sets. The multimodal approach, using both visual and text features, yields the lowest mean absolute error (MAE) (0.224), outperforming the unimodal vision-only (0.282) and text-only (0.338) approaches. The best-performing multimodal model was applied to a held-out test set for external evaluation and achieved a mean squared error of 0.10805, demonstrating the potential of LLMs for psychometric analysis and automated item development.

Teachers face increasing demands on their time, particularly in adapting mathematics curricula to meet individual student needs while maintaining cognitive rigor. This study evaluates whether AI tools can accurately classify the cognitive demand of mathematical tasks, which is important for creating or adapting tasks that support student learning. We tested eleven AI tools: six general-purpose (ChatGPT, Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok, Perplexity) and five education-specific (Brisk, Coteach AI, Khanmigo, Magic School, School$.$AI), on their ability to categorize mathematics tasks across four levels of cognitive demand using a research-based framework. The goal was to approximate the performance teachers will achieve with straightforward prompts. On average, AI tools accurately classified cognitive demand in only 63% of cases. Education-specific tools were not more accurate than general-purpose tools, and no tool exceeded 83% accuracy. All tools struggled with tasks at the extremes of cognitive demand (Memorization and Doing Mathematics), exhibiting a systematic bias toward middle-category levels (Procedures with/without Connections). The tools often gave plausible-sounding explanations likely to be persuasive to novice teachers. Error analysis of AI tools' misclassification of the broad level of cognitive demand (high vs. low) revealed that tools consistently overweighted surface textual features over underlying cognitive processes. Further, AI tools showed weaknesses in reasoning about factors that make tasks higher vs. lower cognitive demand. Errors stemmed not from ignoring relevant dimensions, but from incorrectly reasoning about multiple task aspects. These findings carry implications for AI integration into teacher planning workflows and highlight the need for improved prompt engineering and tool development for educational applications.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) offers scalable support for formative feedback, yet most AI-generated feedback relies on task-specific rubrics authored by domain experts. While effective, rubric authoring is time-consuming and limits scalability across instructional contexts. Learning progressions (LP) provide a theoretically grounded representation of students' developing understanding and may offer an alternative solution. This study examines whether an LP-driven rubric generation pipeline can produce AI-generated feedback comparable in quality to feedback guided by expert-authored task rubrics. We analyzed AI-generated feedback for written scientific explanations produced by 207 middle school students in a chemistry task. Two pipelines were compared: (a) feedback guided by a human expert-designed, task-specific rubric, and (b) feedback guided by a task-specific rubric automatically derived from a learning progression prior to grading and feedback generation. Two human coders evaluated feedback quality using a multi-dimensional rubric assessing Clarity, Accuracy, Relevance, Engagement and Motivation, and Reflectiveness (10 sub-dimensions). Inter-rater reliability was high, with percent agreement ranging from 89% to 100% and Cohen's kappa values for estimable dimensions (kappa = .66 to .88). Paired t-tests revealed no statistically significant differences between the two pipelines for Clarity (t1 = 0.00, p1 = 1.000; t2 = 0.84, p2 = .399), Relevance (t1 = 0.28, p1 = .782; t2 = -0.58, p2 = .565), Engagement and Motivation (t1 = 0.50, p1 = .618; t2 = -0.58, p2 = .565), or Reflectiveness (t = -0.45, p = .656). These findings suggest that the LP-driven rubric pipeline can serve as an alternative solution.

Existing AI-generated video quality assessment (AIGVQA) methods mainly focus on global perceptual realism and coarse text-video alignment, while overlooking a critical requirement in educational scenarios: concept correctness. In early mathematics education, subtle errors in numerical quantities, geometric relations, or spatial configurations may fundamentally alter the conveyed knowledge despite visually plausible generation. To address this problem, we introduce EduAVQABench, the first benchmark for concept-aware educational AIGV assessment, containing 1,130 videos generated by ten state-of-the-art T2V models together with over 310,650 fine-grained human annotations spanning perceptual quality and semantic alignment. Built upon this benchmark, we further propose EduVQA, a concept-aware AIGVQA framework equipped with a Structured 2D Mixture-of-Experts (S2D-MoE) architecture. By jointly modeling fine-grained concept assessment and overall quality prediction through shared experts and adaptive two-dimensional routing, EduVQA effectively captures subtle concept-level inconsistencies overlooked by conventional global scoring methods. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EduVQA consistently outperforms existing AIGVQA approaches across both perceptual and semantic evaluation tasks while exhibiting strong generalization capability on unseen benchmarks. Code and dataset will be publicly available at: https://github.com/EduVQA/EduVQA.

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.

This chapter examines the potential of generative AI in enhancing science literacy across the K-16+ grade span, including its benefits as well as the conceptual and practical challenges that doing so presents. It begins with a discussion of what defines science literacy in the era of AI, including how AI has changed science and the demand for future citizens to be scientifically literate when AI is applied in their careers and lives. The chapter further discusses why science literacy presents such a challenge in K-16+ educational settings. It then develops an argument for the type of architecture needed for AI to assist in solving the problem by bringing coherence to the teaching, learning, and assessment of science knowledge and reasoning. Components of this architecture are illustrated with respect to the AI tools and capabilities needed for design and implementation. The chapter concludes with a consideration of what has been learned regarding both science literacy and AI, as well as what remains to be learned, including the research and development (R&D) needed, and the generalizability of this science literacy case to other disciplinary learning and knowledge domains.

Effective mathematics education requires identifying and responding to students' mistakes. For AI to support pedagogical applications, models must perform well across different levels of student proficiency. Our work provides an extensive, year-long snapshot of how 11 vision-language models (VLMs) perform on DrawEduMath, a QA benchmark involving real students' handwritten, hand-drawn responses to math problems. We find that models' weaknesses concentrate on a core component of math education: student error. All evaluated VLMs underperform when describing work from students who require more pedagogical help, and across all QA, they struggle the most on questions related to assessing student error. Thus, while VLMs may be optimized to be math problem solving experts, our results suggest that they require alternative development incentives to adequately support educational use cases.

Student repetition in secondary education imposes significant resource burdens, particularly in resource-constrained contexts. Addressing this challenge, this study introduces a unified machine learning framework that simultaneously predicts pass/fail outcomes and continuous grades, a departure from prior research that treats classification and regression as separate tasks. Six models were evaluated: Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, and Random Forest for classification, and Linear Regression, Decision Tree Regressor, and Random Forest Regressor for regression, with hyperparameters optimized via exhaustive grid search. Using academic and demographic data from 4424 secondary school students, classification models achieved accuracies of up to 96%, while regression models attained a coefficient of determination of 0.70, surpassing baseline approaches. These results confirm the feasibility of early, data-driven identification of at-risk students and highlight the value of integrating dual-task prediction for more comprehensive insights. By enabling timely, personalized interventions, the framework offers a practical pathway to reducing grade repetition and optimizing resource allocation.

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) in healthcare creates an urgent need for scalable and psychometrically sound evaluation methods. Conventional static benchmarks are costly to administer repeatedly, vulnerable to data contamination, and lack calibrated measurement properties for fine-grained performance tracking. We propose and validate a computerized adaptive testing (CAT) framework grounded in item response theory (IRT) for efficient assessment of standardized medical knowledge in LLMs. The study comprises a two-phase design: a Monte Carlo simulation to identify optimal CAT configurations and an empirical evaluation of 38 LLMs using a human-calibrated medical item bank. Each model completed both the full item bank and an adaptive test that dynamically selected items based on real-time ability estimates and terminated upon reaching a predefined reliability threshold (standard error <= 0.3). Results show that CAT-derived proficiency estimates achieved a near-perfect correlation with full-bank estimates (r = 0.988) while using only 1.3 percent of the items. Evaluation time was reduced from several hours to minutes per model, with substantial reductions in token usage and computational cost, while preserving inter-model performance rankings. This work establishes a psychometric framework for rapid, low-cost benchmarking of foundational medical knowledge in LLMs. The proposed adaptive methodology is intended as a standardized pre-screening and continuous monitoring tool and is not a substitute for real-world clinical validation or safety-oriented prospective studies.

Automated short answer grading (ASAG) is critical for scaling educational assessment, yet large language models (LLMs) often struggle with hallucinations and strict rubric adherence due to their reliance on generalized pre-training. While Rretrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) mitigates these issues, standard "flat" vector retrieval mechanisms treat knowledge as isolated fragments, failing to capture the structural relationships and multi-hop reasoning essential for complex educational content. To address this limitation, we introduce a Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation (GraphRAG) framework that organizes reference materials into a structured knowledge graph to explicitly model dependencies between concepts. Our methodology employs a dual-phase pipeline: utilizing Microsoft GraphRAG for high-fidelity graph construction and the HippoRAG neurosymbolic algorithm to execute associative graph traversals, thereby retrieving comprehensive, connected subgraphs of evidence. Experimental evaluations on a Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) dataset demonstrate that this structural approach significantly outperforms standard RAG baselines across all metrics. Notably, the HippoRAG implementation achieved substantial improvements in evaluating Science and Engineering Practices (SEP), confirming the superiority of structural retrieval in verifying the logical reasoning chains required for higher-order academic assessment.

In the field of educational assessment, automated scoring systems increasingly rely on deep learning and large language models (LLMs). However, these systems face significant risks of bias amplification, where model prediction gaps between student groups become larger than those observed in training data. This issue is especially severe for underrepresented groups such as English Language Learners (ELLs), as models may inherit and further magnify existing disparities in the data. We identify that this issue is closely tied to representation bias: the scarcity of minority (high-scoring ELL) samples makes models trained with empirical risk minimization favor majority (non-ELL) linguistic patterns. Consequently, models tend to under-predict ELL students who even demonstrate comparable domain knowledge but use different linguistic patterns, thereby undermining the fairness of automated scoring outcomes. To mitigate this, we propose BRIDGE, a Bias-Reducing Inter-group Data GEneration framework designed for low-resource assessment settings. Instead of relying on the limited minority samples, BRIDGE synthesizes high-scoring ELL samples by "pasting" construct-relevant (i.e., rubric-aligned knowledge and evidence) content from abundant high-scoring non-ELL samples into authentic ELL linguistic patterns. We further introduce a discriminator model to ensure the quality of synthetic samples. Experiments on California Science Test (CAST) datasets demonstrate that BRIDGE effectively reduces prediction bias for high-scoring ELL students while maintaining overall scoring performance. Notably, our method achieves fairness gains comparable to using additional real human data, offering a cost-effective solution for ensuring equitable scoring in large-scale assessments.

Existing Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) frameworks typically select questions based on the predicted likelihood that the student will answer correctly. This design ignores information contained in students' open-ended responses, especially in domains such as programming education, where code structures and bugs contain rich information on student knowledge. In this work, we propose Code GENerative CAT (CodeGENCAT), a generative CAT framework that selects questions using predicted student code responses. First, we develop a Generative Item Response Theory (GIRT) model that generates code responses conditioned on estimated student knowledge, trained with supervised fine-tuning followed by direct preference optimization for knowledge-response alignment. Second, we introduce three question-selection algorithms that measure uncertainty, coding style diversity, and information from predicted student code responses. Experiments on two real-world programming education datasets show that CodeGENCAT outperforms all CAT baselines, achieving an AUC improvement of up to 4.32% over the strongest baseline in the early stages of adaptive testing.

The rapid rise of large language models (LLMs) is reshaping the landscape of automatic assessment in education. While these systems demonstrate substantial advantages in adaptability to diverse question types and flexibility in output formats, they also introduce new challenges related to output uncertainty, stemming from the inherently probabilistic nature of LLMs. Output uncertainty is an inescapable challenge in automatic assessment, as assessment results often play a critical role in informing subsequent pedagogical actions, such as providing feedback to students or guiding instructional decisions. Unreliable or poorly calibrated uncertainty estimates can lead to unstable downstream interventions, potentially disrupting students' learning processes and resulting in unintended negative consequences. To systematically understand this challenge and inform future research, we benchmark a broad range of uncertainty quantification methods in the context of LLM-based automatic assessment. Although the effectiveness of these methods has been demonstrated in many tasks across other domains, their applicability and reliability in educational settings, particularly for automatic grading, remain underexplored. Through comprehensive analyses of uncertainty behaviors across multiple assessment datasets, LLM families, and generation control settings, we characterize the uncertainty patterns exhibited by LLMs in grading scenarios. Based on these findings, we evaluate the strengths and limitations of different uncertainty metrics and analyze the influence of key factors, including model families, assessment tasks, and decoding strategies, on uncertainty estimates. Our study provides actionable insights into the characteristics of uncertainty in LLM-based automatic assessment and lays the groundwork for developing more reliable and effective uncertainty-aware grading systems in the future.

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.