Hybrid E-Assessment in Higher Education: Semi-Automated Grading of Paper-Based Written Examinations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.08855v1
• Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2026 21:50:20 GMT
• Title: Hybrid E-Assessment in Higher Education: Semi-Automated Grading of Paper-Based Written Examinations
• Abstract summary: The paper proposes a hybrid e-assessment approach that retains paper-based, problem-oriented examination tasks while enabling semi-automated grading.<n>Recent vision-capable large language models, combined with a two-pass validation principle and comparison against a solution key, can reduce misclassifications.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper examines the limitations of fully digital and partially digital e-assessment approaches in summative examinations in higher education. The analysis focuses on the didactic narrowing caused by closed question formats and on organizational, technical, and legal constraints that become particularly relevant in large student cohorts. As an alternative, the paper proposes a hybrid e-assessment approach that retains paper-based, problem-oriented examination tasks while enabling semi-automated grading. Assessment-relevant intermediate results are encoded in a structured answer format, entered by students by hand, and subsequently captured from table fields. The central technical bottleneck is reliable recognition of handwritten characters under realistic examination conditions. Recent vision-capable large language models, combined with a two-pass validation principle and comparison against a solution key, can reduce misclassifications and thereby improve the validity, fairness, and scalability of summative assessment.

Related papers

• Automated Grading of Handwritten Mathematics Using Vision-Capable LLMs [2.727845763576068]
  Vision-capable large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities.<n>We present an empirical evaluation of an LLM-based grader for handwritten mathematical work using instructor-defined rubrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T19:06:15Z)
• Evaluating AI Grading on Real-World Handwritten College Mathematics: A Large-Scale Study Toward a Benchmark [9.922581736690159]
  We present a large-scale empirical study of AI grading on real, handwritten calculus work from UC Irvine.<n>Using OCR-conditioned large language models with structured, rubric-guided prompting, our system produces scores and formative feedback for thousands of free-response quiz submissions.<n>In a setting with no single ground-truth label, we evaluate performance against official teaching-assistant grades, student surveys, and independent human review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-01T03:32:51Z)
• RPC-Bench: A Fine-grained Benchmark for Research Paper Comprehension [65.81339691942757]
  RPC-Bench is a large-scale question-answering benchmark built from review-rebuttal exchanges of high-quality computer science papers.<n>We design a fine-grained taxonomy aligned with the scientific research flow to assess models' ability to understand and answer why, what, and how questions in scholarly contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-14T11:37:00Z)
• PaperAudit-Bench: Benchmarking Error Detection in Research Papers for Critical Automated Peer Review [54.141490756509306]
  We introduce PaperAudit-Bench, which consists of two components: PaperAudit-Dataset, an error dataset, and PaperAudit-Review, an automated review framework.<n>Experiments on PaperAudit-Bench reveal large variability in error detectability across models and detection depths.<n>We show that the dataset supports training lightweight LLM detectors via SFT and RL, enabling effective error detection at reduced computational cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T04:26:12Z)
• TrueGradeAI: Retrieval-Augmented and Bias-Resistant AI for Transparent and Explainable Digital Assessments [0.0]
  TrueGradeAI is an AI-driven digital examination framework designed to overcome the shortcomings of traditional paper-based assessments.<n>The system preserves natural handwriting capturing by stylus input on secure tablets and applying transformer-based optical character recognition for transcription.<n> evaluation is conducted through a retrieval-augmented pipeline that integrates faculty solutions, cache layers, and external references.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T16:00:36Z)
• SoK: Large Language Model Copyright Auditing via Fingerprinting [69.14570598973195]
  We introduce a unified framework and formal taxonomy that categorizes existing methods into white-box and black-box approaches.<n>We propose LeaFBench, the first systematic benchmark for evaluating LLM fingerprinting under realistic deployment scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-27T12:56:57Z)
• Document-Level Tabular Numerical Cross-Checking: A Coarse-to-Fine Approach [27.581678327762003]
  numerical consistency across tables in disclosure documents is critical for ensuring accuracy, maintaining credibility, and reputational and economic risks.<n>This paper introduces CoFiTCheck, a novel framework that addresses these challenges through two sequential stages: embedding-based filtering and discriminative classification.<n>CoFiTCheck significantly outperforms previous methods while maintaining practical efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T10:17:21Z)
• Ratas framework: A comprehensive genai-based approach to rubric-based marking of real-world textual exams [3.4132239125074206]
  RATAS (Rubric Automated Tree-based Answer Scoring) is a novel framework that leverages state-of-the-art generative AI models for rubric-based grading of textual responses.<n> RATAS is designed to support a wide range of grading rubrics, enable subject-agnostic evaluation, and generate structured, explainable rationales for assigned scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T22:17:27Z)
• Localizing Factual Inconsistencies in Attributable Text Generation [74.11403803488643]
  We introduce QASemConsistency, a new formalism for localizing factual inconsistencies in attributable text generation.<n>We show that QASemConsistency yields factual consistency scores that correlate well with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T22:53:48Z)
• SoftMatch: Addressing the Quantity-Quality Trade-off in Semi-supervised Learning [101.86916775218403]
  This paper revisits the popular pseudo-labeling methods via a unified sample weighting formulation. We propose SoftMatch to overcome the trade-off by maintaining both high quantity and high quality of pseudo-labels during training. In experiments, SoftMatch shows substantial improvements across a wide variety of benchmarks, including image, text, and imbalanced classification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-26T03:53:25Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)

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.