Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2025
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.05538 |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866918155557797888 |
|---|---|
| author | Henkel, Owen Roberts, Bill Jaffe, Doug Holt, Laurence |
| author_facet | Henkel, Owen Roberts, Bill Jaffe, Doug Holt, Laurence |
| contents | 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. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2510_05538 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Seeing the Big Picture: Evaluating Multimodal LLMs' Ability to Interpret and Grade Handwritten Student Work Henkel, Owen Roberts, Bill Jaffe, Doug Holt, Laurence Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Artificial Intelligence 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. |
| title | Seeing the Big Picture: Evaluating Multimodal LLMs' Ability to Interpret and Grade Handwritten Student Work |
| topic | Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.05538 |