Seeing the Big Picture: Evaluating Multimodal LLMs' Ability to Interpret and Grade Handwritten Student Work

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.05538v1
• Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2025 02:59:18 GMT
• Title: Seeing the Big Picture: Evaluating Multimodal LLMs' Ability to Interpret and Grade Handwritten Student Work
• Authors: Owen Henkel, Bill Roberts, Doug Jaffe, Laurence Holt,
• Abstract summary: We present two experiments investigating MLLM performance on handwritten student mathematics classwork.<n>Experiment A examines 288 handwritten responses from Ghanaian middle school students solving arithmetic problems with objective answers.<n>Experiment B evaluates 150 mathematical illustrations from American elementary students, where the drawings are the answer to the question.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent advances in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) raise the question of their potential for grading, analyzing, and offering feedback on handwritten student classwork. This capability would be particularly beneficial in elementary and middle-school mathematics education, where most work remains handwritten, because seeing students' full working of a problem provides valuable insights into their learning processes, but is extremely time-consuming to grade. We present two experiments investigating MLLM performance on handwritten student mathematics classwork. Experiment A examines 288 handwritten responses from Ghanaian middle school students solving arithmetic problems with objective answers. In this context, models achieved near-human accuracy (95%, k = 0.90) but exhibited occasional errors that human educators would be unlikely to make. Experiment B evaluates 150 mathematical illustrations from American elementary students, where the drawings are the answer to the question. These tasks lack single objective answers and require sophisticated visual interpretation as well as pedagogical judgment in order to analyze and evaluate them. We attempted to separate MLLMs' visual capabilities from their pedagogical abilities by first asking them to grade the student illustrations directly, and then by augmenting the image with a detailed human description of the illustration. We found that when the models had to analyze the student illustrations directly, they struggled, achieving only k = 0.20 with ground truth scores, but when given human descriptions, their agreement levels improved dramatically to k = 0.47, which was in line with human-to-human agreement levels. This gap suggests MLLMs can "see" and interpret arithmetic work relatively well, but still struggle to "see" student mathematical illustrations.

Related papers

• The Aftermath of DrawEduMath: Vision Language Models Underperform with Struggling Students and Misdiagnose Errors [15.649331674184433]
  Our work provides an extensive, year-long snapshot of how 11 vision-language models (VLMs) perform on DrawEduMath.<n>We find that models' weaknesses concentrate on a core component of math education: student error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-01T05:15:12Z)
• MathEDU: Towards Adaptive Feedback for Student Mathematical Problem-Solving [3.2962799070467432]
  This paper explores the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to assess students' math problem-solving processes and provide adaptive feedback.<n>We evaluate the model's ability to support personalized learning in two scenarios: one where the model has access to students' prior answer histories, and another simulating a cold-start context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T15:59:39Z)
• Evaluating Graphical Perception with Multimodal LLMs [2.090547583226381]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have remarkably progressed in analyzing and understanding images.<n>For visualization, how do MLLMs perform when applied to graphical perception tasks?<n>Our study primarily evaluates fine-tuned and pretrained models and zero-shot prompting to determine if they closely match human graphical perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T16:14:08Z)
• DrawEduMath: Evaluating Vision Language Models with Expert-Annotated Students' Hand-Drawn Math Images [19.425346207453927]
  DrawEduMath is an English-language dataset of 2,030 images of students' handwritten responses to math problems.<n>Teachers provided detailed annotations, including free-form descriptions of each image and 11,661 question-answer (QA) pairs.<n>We show that even state-of-the-art vision language models leave much room for improvement on DrawEduMath questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T19:03:42Z)
• Embracing AI in Education: Understanding the Surge in Large Language Model Use by Secondary Students [53.20318273452059]
  Large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI's ChatGPT have opened up new avenues in education.<n>Despite school restrictions, our survey of over 300 middle and high school students revealed that a remarkable 70% of students have utilized LLMs.<n>We propose a few ideas to address such issues, including subject-specific models, personalized learning, and AI classrooms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-27T19:19:34Z)
• Revisiting the Graph Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models: Case Studies in Translation, Connectivity and Shortest Path [53.71787069694794]
  We focus on the graph reasoning ability of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We revisit the ability of LLMs on three fundamental graph tasks: graph description translation, graph connectivity, and the shortest-path problem.<n>Our findings suggest that LLMs can fail to understand graph structures through text descriptions and exhibit varying performance for all these fundamental tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-18T16:26:39Z)
• MathVerse: Does Your Multi-modal LLM Truly See the Diagrams in Visual Math Problems? [99.0305256706604]
  We introduce MathVerse, an all-around visual math benchmark designed for an equitable and in-depth evaluation of MLLMs. We meticulously collect 2,612 high-quality, multi-subject math problems with diagrams from publicly available sources. This approach allows MathVerse to comprehensively assess whether and how much MLLMs can truly understand the visual diagrams for mathematical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T17:59:50Z)
• Do Language Models Exhibit the Same Cognitive Biases in Problem Solving as Human Learners? [140.9751389452011]
  We study the biases of large language models (LLMs) in relation to those known in children when solving arithmetic word problems. We generate a novel set of word problems for each of these tests, using a neuro-symbolic approach that enables fine-grained control over the problem features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-31T18:48:20Z)
• Three Questions Concerning the Use of Large Language Models to Facilitate Mathematics Learning [4.376598435975689]
  We discuss the challenges associated with employing large language models to enhance students' mathematical problem-solving skills. LLMs can generate the wrong reasoning processes, and also exhibit difficulty in understanding the given questions' rationales when attempting to correct students' answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T16:05:35Z)
• Bridging the Novice-Expert Gap via Models of Decision-Making: A Case Study on Remediating Math Mistakes [4.19968291791323]
  We use cognitive task analysis to translate an expert's latent thought process into a decision-making model for remediation. This involves an expert identifying (A) the student's error, (B) a remediation strategy, and (C) their intention before generating a response. We construct a dataset of 700 real tutoring conversations, annotated by experts with their decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-16T17:59:50Z)
• Evaluating Language Models for Mathematics through Interactions [116.67206980096513]
  We introduce CheckMate, a prototype platform for humans to interact with and evaluate large language models (LLMs) We conduct a study with CheckMate to evaluate three language models (InstructGPT, ChatGPT, and GPT-4) as assistants in proving undergraduate-level mathematics. We derive a taxonomy of human behaviours and uncover that despite a generally positive correlation, there are notable instances of divergence between correctness and perceived helpfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-02T17:12:25Z)
• oLMpics -- On what Language Model Pre-training Captures [84.60594612120173]
  We propose eight reasoning tasks, which require operations such as comparison, conjunction, and composition. A fundamental challenge is to understand whether the performance of a LM on a task should be attributed to the pre-trained representations or to the process of fine-tuning on the task data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-12-31T12:11:35Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.