arxiv

Authors: Sumbul Khan, Wei Ting Liow, Lay Kee Ang

Abstract: As design thinking education grows in secondary and tertiary contexts, educators face the challenge of evaluating creative artefacts that combine visual and textual elements. Traditional rubric-based assessment is laborious, time-consuming, and inconsistent due to reliance on Teaching Assistants (TA) in large, multi-section cohorts. This paper presents an exploratory study investigating the reliability and perceived accuracy of AI-assisted assessment compared to TA-assisted assessment in evaluating student posters in design thinking education. Two activities were conducted with 33 Ministry of Education (MOE) Singapore school teachers to (1) compare AI-generated scores with TA grading across three key dimensions: empathy and user understanding, identification of pain points and opportunities, and visual communication, and (2) examine teacher preferences for AI-assigned, TA-assigned, and hybrid scores. Results showed low statistical agreement between instructor and AI scores for empathy and pain points, with slightly higher alignment for visual communication. Teachers preferred TA-assigned scores in six of ten samples. Qualitative feedback highlighted the potential of AI for formative feedback, consistency, and student self-reflection, but raised concerns about its limitations in capturing contextual nuance and creative insight. The study underscores the need for hybrid assessment models that integrate computational efficiency with human insights. This research contributes to the evolving conversation on responsible AI adoption in creative disciplines, emphasizing the balance between automation and human judgment for scalable and pedagogically sound assessment.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16069

Authors: Numaan Naeem, Abdellah El Mekki, Muhammad Abdul-Mageed

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are transforming education by answering questions, explaining complex concepts, and generating content across a wide range of subjects. Despite strong performance on academic benchmarks, they often fail to tailor responses to students’ grade levels. This is a critical need in K-12 education, where age-appropriate vocabulary and explanation are essential for effective learning. Existing models frequently produce outputs that are too advanced or vague for younger learners, and there are no standardized benchmarks to evaluate their ability to adjust across cognitive and developmental stages. To address this gap, we introduce EduAdapt, a benchmark of nearly 48k grade-labeled QA pairs across nine science subjects, spanning Grades 1-12 and grouped into four grade levels. We evaluate a diverse set of open-source LLMs on EduAdapt and find that while larger models generally perform better, they still struggle with generating suitable responses for early-grade students (Grades 1-5). Our work presents the first dataset and evaluation framework for assessing grade-level adaptability in LLMs, aiming to foster more developmentally aligned educational AI systems through better training and prompting strategies. EduAdapt code and datasets are publicly available atthis https URL.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.17389

Authors: Thorsten Fröhlich, Tim Schlippe

Abstract: The evaluation of academic theses is a cornerstone of higher education, ensuring rigor and integrity. Traditional methods, though effective, are time-consuming and subject to evaluator variability. This paper presents RubiSCoT, an AI-supported framework designed to enhance thesis evaluation from proposal to final submission. Using advanced natural language processing techniques, including large language models, retrieval-augmented generation, and structured chain-of-thought prompting, RubiSCoT offers a consistent, scalable solution. The framework includes preliminary assessments, multidimensional assessments, content extraction, rubric-based scoring, and detailed reporting. We present the design and implementation of RubiSCoT, discussing its potential to optimize academic assessment processes through consistent, scalable, and transparent evaluation.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.17309

Authors: Xinrui Fang, Anran Xu, Chi-Lan Yang, Ya-Fang Lin, Sylvain Malacria, Koji Yatani

Abstract:

Critical reading is a primary way through which researchers develop their critical thinking skills. While exchanging thoughts and opinions with peers can strengthen critical reading, junior researchers often lack access to peers who can offer diverse perspectives. To address this gap, we designed an in-situ thought exchange interface informed by peer feedback from a formative study (N=8) to support junior researchers’ critical paper reading. We evaluated the effects of thought exchanges under three conditions (no-agent, single-agent, and multi-agent) with 46 junior researchers over two weeks. Our results showed that incorporating agent-mediated thought exchanges during paper reading significantly improved participants’ critical thinking scores compared to the no-agent condition. In the single-agent condition, participants more frequently made reflective annotations on the paper content. In the multi-agent condition, participants engaged more actively with agents’ responses. Our qualitative analysis further revealed that participants compared and analyzed multiple perspectives in the multi-agent condition. This work contributes to understanding in-situ AI-based support for critical paper reading through thought exchanges and offers design implications for future research.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15234

Authors: Enis Oğuz

Abstract:

The developments in Generative AI technologies have paved the way for numerous innovations in different fields. Recently, Generative AI has been proposed as a competitor to AES systems in evaluating student essays automatically. Considering the potential limitations of AI in processing idioms, this study assessed the scoring performances of Generative AI models for essays with and without idioms by incorporating insights from Corpus Linguistics and Computational Linguistics. Two equal essay lists were created from 348 student essays taken from a corpus: one with multiple idioms present in each essay and another with no idioms in essays. Three Generative AI models (ChatGPT, Gemini, and Deepseek) were asked to score all essays in both lists three times, using the same rubric used by human raters in assigning essay scores. The results revealed excellent consistency for all models, but Gemini outperformed its competitors in interrater reliability with human raters. There was also no detectable bias for any demographic group in AI assessment. For essays with multiple idioms, Gemini followed a the most similar pattern to human raters. While the models in the study demonstrated potential for a hybrid approach, Gemini was the best candidate for the task due to its ability to handle figurative language and showed promise for handling essay-scoring tasks alone in the future.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15009