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

A Zero-Shot LLM Framework for Automatic Assignment Grading in Higher Education

Authors
Calvin Yeung,
Jeff Yu,
King Chau Cheung,
Tat Wing Wong,
Chun Man Chan,
Kin Chi Wong,
Keisuke Fujii
Date
Publisher
arXiv
Automated grading has become an essential tool in education technology due to its ability to efficiently assess large volumes of student work, provide consistent and unbiased evaluations, and deliver immediate feedback to enhance learning. However, current systems face significant limitations, including the need for large datasets in few-shot learning methods, a lack of personalized and actionable feedback, and an overemphasis on benchmark performance rather than student experience. To address these challenges, we propose a Zero-Shot Large Language Model (LLM)-Based Automated Assignment Grading (AAG) system. This framework leverages prompt engineering to evaluate both computational and explanatory student responses without requiring additional training or fine-tuning. The AAG system delivers tailored feedback that highlights individual strengths and areas for improvement, thereby enhancing student learning outcomes. Our study demonstrates the system's effectiveness through comprehensive evaluations, including survey responses from higher education students that indicate significant improvements in motivation, understanding, and preparedness compared to traditional grading methods. The results validate the AAG system's potential to transform educational assessment by prioritizing learning experiences and providing scalable, high-quality feedback.
Study at a glance
  • Question: Can an AI tool automatically grade student assignments and provide personalized feedback to support learning?
  • Setting and data: Higher education students, using computational and explanatory assignment responses and student surveys.
  • Method: System evaluation and student surveys comparing the AI grading tool with traditional grading methods.
Why it matters

Current automated grading systems face significant limitations. They require large datasets, lack personalized and actionable feedback, and overemphasize benchmark performance rather than the student experience.

Key findings
  • In higher education, students reported that an automated grading tool significantly improved their motivation, understanding, and preparedness compared to traditional grading methods.
  • The AI grading system effectively evaluated both computational and explanatory student responses without requiring additional model training.
  • The automated grading tool delivered tailored feedback highlighting individual student strengths and specific areas needing improvement.

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

What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?