arXiv preprint ·
Vision-Language Models for Criterion-Level Grading of Handwritten Examinations in Outcome-Based Education
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Criterion-level grading connects examination performance to learning outcomes, but manual marking introduces workload and variation between markers. This study evaluates vision-language models (VLMs) for handwritten outcome-based assessment across five dimensions: accuracy, human agreement, repeated-run reliability, error concentration, and explanation quality. Using 1,982 criterion-level records from 485 undergraduate examination answers, we compare 20 configurations spanning Qwen2.5-VL, InternVL3, Pixtral, a Donut baseline, and a cascade ensemble. Evaluation setups include zero-shot prompting, few-shot prompting, partial fine-tuning, and Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA). Two independent faculty markers regraded all 291 test criteria, providing a human agreement baseline on the same assessment materials. Qwen2.5-VL with LoRA achieved Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) of 0.727 and mean absolute error of 0.435 marks against the examiner, compared with mean human-pair QWK of 0.551. This comparison reflects calibration to the examiner's training marks. LoRA outperformed partial fine-tuning for all three instruction-tuned VLMs, while few-shot prompting reduced QWK in every configuration with valid prompted scores. Aggregate reliability and exact repeatability diverged: intraclass correlations ranged from 0.790 to 0.874, yet 50.2-63.6% of criteria changed marks across five sampled runs. Attention-guided deletion showed no statistically significant advantage over random masking, and four faculty reviewers reached no consensus on explanation usefulness. These findings highlight the need for rubric-specific calibration, repeatable scoring, review of consequential errors, and separate validation of explanations. The released evaluation protocol supports criterion-level assessment research and grading tools with teacher oversight.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computer Vision
Task-Specified Active Metrological Inspection with Measurement-Steered VLA Manipulation and Deterministic Evidence Gating
RAIN: Region-Aware Inversion Network for Semantic Watermark Extraction
What Input Resolution Is Required for Bird Species Identification, and What Is Its Latency Cost on an Edge Device? A Study of 14 Input Resolutions and Six Architectures with On-Device Measurements
Proximal-Only Transmission Matrix Recovery of an Arbitrarily Deformed Graded-Index Multimode Fiber
SPARK: Representation-Level KV Memory Alignment for Safer Vision-Language Models
Get the few papers worth your time in Computer Vision every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.