Search and Filter

Repository Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the repository's content relevance and usability. Please share your thoughts to help us better serve researchers and practitioners.

Submit feedback

Submit a research study

Contribute to the repository:

Add a paper

Machine-Assisted Grading Of Nationwide School-Leaving Essay Exams With Llms And Statistical Nlp

Date
Publisher
arXiv
Large language models (LLMs) enable rapid and consistent automated evaluation of open-ended exam responses, including dimensions of content and argumentation that have traditionally required human judgment. This is particularly important in cases where a large amount of exams need to be graded in a limited time frame, such as nation-wide graduation exams in various countries. Here, we examine the applicability of automated scoring on two large datasets of trial exam essays of two full national cohorts from Estonia. We operationalize the official curriculum-based rubric and compare LLM and statistical natural language processing (NLP) based assessments with human panel scores. The results show that automated scoring can achieve performance comparable to that of human raters and tends to fall within the human scoring range. We also evaluate bias, prompt injection risks, and LLMs as essay writers. These findings demonstrate that a principled, rubric-driven, human-in-the-loop scoring pipeline is viable for high-stakes writing assessment, particularly relevant for digitally advanced societies like Estonia, which is about to adapt a fully electronic examination system. Furthermore, the system produces fine-grained subscore profiles that can be used to generate systematic, personalized feedback for instruction and exam preparation. The study provides evidence that LLM-assisted assessment can be implemented at a national scale, even in a small-language context, while maintaining human oversight and compliance with emerging educational and regulatory standards.
Study at a glance
  • Question: Can automated language models reliably score nationwide school-leaving exam essays in a small-language context?
  • Setting and data: Estonia, spring 2024 trial e-exams, 1,545 total essays from 9th grade (781 texts) and 12th grade (764 texts) students.
  • Method: Model evaluation comparing zero-shot language models and supervised regression against human panel consensus scores across official rubric categories.
Why it matters

Human essay grading is demanding and faces consistency challenges under tight time limits, particularly in small-language settings. Evaluating whether automated scoring can reliably support nationwide exams helps address subjectivity while complying with emerging regulations.

Key findings
  • Automated scoring achieved performance comparable to human raters, with total score mean absolute errors ranging between 2.66 and 4.97 points on a 27-point scale.
  • Supervised learning with statistical language tools matched or outperformed zero-shot language models in categories like punctuation, orthography, and formatting.
  • Prepending a simple prompt injection instruction to essays artificially inflated scores by an average of 6.43 points on the 27-point scale.

Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.

What is the application?
Who is the user?