Causal Modelling of Support Interventions for Student Competency Assessment

Accurate assessment of student competencies is essential for enabling educators to identify individual needs, design targeted interventions, and evaluate the effectiveness of educational strategies. Empirical assessment procedures are typically grounded in psychometric models, such as item response theory, which relate student competence levels to performance on assessment tasks. In this paper, we advocate adopting a structural causal modelling approach to educational assessment, moving beyond probabilistic belief updating toward a framework that explicitly supports interventional and counterfactual reasoning. We propose a corresponding protocol for its construction and analyse the practical relevance of forms of reasoning that remain inaccessible to standard associative models, including the explicit modelling of interventions such as hints and the related counterfactual scenario analysis. Although our protocol requires the structural equations to be elicited from experts, the necessary information is purely logical and does not rely on probabilistic, less tenable assumptions. We illustrate the approach using data from an assessment that employs complex tasks designed to measure compulsory school student algorithmic skills.

Do Assessment Instruments Measure the Same Thing for Humans and LLMs? A Latent Structure Analysis

The rapid development and growing deployment of large language models (LLMs) have made it increasingly important to understand their capabilities. A common approach is to evaluate LLMs using assessment instruments originally designed to measure skills and competencies in humans, such as standardized exams, and to use performance on these instruments as evidence for generalizable claims about LLMs' underlying abilities on the same skills the assessments are intended to measure in humans. However, from a validity perspective, such inferences require that the relationship between observed performance and underlying constructs established for humans also holds for LLMs. In particular, a necessary condition for transferring score interpretations is similarity in the latent structure of responses to the assessment. In this study, we examine whether this condition holds in two educational contexts: high-school chemistry and a quantitative reasoning section of a university entrance exam. Using a case study design, we compare human response data with responses generated by six multimodal LLMs. Our analytical approach combines exploratory factor analysis, factor congruence, and resampling to assess latent structure similarity across human learners and LLMs. Across both instruments, we find systematic differences between human and LLM factor structures, showing evidence that the analyzed assessments may not measure the same constructs for humans and LLMs. These findings call into question the validity of evaluation practices that use educational assessments to make claims about AI capabilities.

The Theoretical Foundation of Socratic Tests: Dynamic, Multimodal, Conversational Examinations

Traditional static assessments rely on a subtractive, deficit-based grading model that often penalizes ambition and obscures diagnostic feedback. Conversely, traditional face-to-face oral examinations introduce severe construct-irrelevant variance by exacerbating performative anxiety and the sociological power imbalances inherent to academic hierarchies. This paper presents the theoretical foundation for the "Socratic Test," an automated, computer-mediated conversational assessment. By integrating Dynamic Assessment principles, multimodal workspaces, Bloom's Taxonomy for real-time proctoring, and the SOLO Taxonomy for structural evaluation, the Socratic Test actively maps a student's cognitive boundaries. This paper formalizes the use of graduated scaffolding to quantify the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and details a non-compensatory, additive grading architecture that prioritizes mastery over penalty and human-AI alignment to ensure unprecedented measurement reliability.

From Evaluated Models to Evaluation Aids: A Multi-Evidence Study of LLM-Based Difficulty Calibration for Programming Examinations

Difficulty differences across parallel-class programming examinations affect the fairness of course assessment. This study repositions large language models from benchmark evaluation targets to auxiliary evidence sources for interpreting exam difficulty, combining AI evidence with aggregated student performance, item exposure, online-judge process data, and teacher interpretation. First, ten models solved an eight-problem final exam synchronously with 120 students: AI pass rate correlated positively with student pass rate (Spearman rho = 0.866, exact p = 0.0119), and a solving-based composite difficulty index correlated negatively with it (rho = -0.905, exact p = 0.0046). A single structured reviewer was then run via auditable API calls on a third-party OpenAI-compatible endpoint whose model label (gpt-5.6-sol) cannot authenticate an official OpenAI upstream model; call metadata and raw responses are archived. Across 79 problems from 11 parallel-class final exams, AI overall difficulty correlated with problem-level pass rate at rho = -0.871 and with non-attempt rate at rho = 0.800; in a 26-problem longitudinal Data Structures and Algorithms B sample, the correlations were -0.829 and 0.883. A 106-problem introductory-course (CS101) sample marks the boundary: the problem-level correlation weakened to rho = -0.552, and the exam-level correlation across 16 exams was near zero, with cohort composition dominating exam-level outcomes. Exposure-discount (0-0.40) and duplicate-problem perturbation tests did not change these directions. AI evidence can thus serve as an external reference for problem validation, parallel-class fairness discussion, and longitudinal quality tracking, while the model-identity boundary, single-reviewer design, and review-output instability set explicit limits: AI difficulty scales must not be used for individual student evaluation or automatic grade adjustment.

The Easy Trap: Why LLMs Underestimate Misconception-Driven Difficulty

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for estimating item difficulty in educational assessment. However, it remains unclear whether such estimates reflect how learners actually experience difficulty. This study investigates the alignment between LLM-generated difficulty ratings and empirical student performance on basic mathematics tasks. Four widely used LLM-based systems generated difficulty ratings on a 1-100 scale for 32 arithmetic items across multiple runs (N = 640 ratings). These were compared with empirical difficulty derived from responses of 770 Indonesian undergraduates using Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (2PL). Results show moderate rank correlations (Spearman's rho = 0.52-0.70), indicating that LLMs capture coarse ordering of item difficulty. However, substantial and systematic misalignment emerges in fraction items. Several items consistently rated as easy by LLMs were among the most difficult for students, such as an item with only 34.16% correct for 100 : 1/2. We argue that LLMs approximate curricular difficulty, or what should be easy based on instructional sequencing, rather than cognitive difficulty driven by learner misconceptions. This leads to systematic underestimation of misconception-driven items, a phenomenon we term the Easy Trap. These findings highlight a critical limitation of LLM-based difficulty estimation and suggest that relying on such estimates without empirical grounding may introduce bias in assessment design and adaptive systems.

AI-Driven Assessment of Human Tutors: Linking Training Performance to Real-Life Practice

There exist numerous tutor training platforms. However, few provide AI-driven training and evaluation for human tutors based on real-life performance. We present an AI-driven system that assesses both open responses during training and authentic real-life tutoring. Unlike platforms that only assess learning through online training or simulations, our system utilizes Generative AI (Gemini-2.5-pro) to analyze transcriptions of authentic tutoring, measuring the transfer of tutor skills to real-life application. Human tutors instructing students remotely in math (N=86) completed six scenario-based lessons, averaging a significant 7.4% learning gain. Using mixed-effects models across 405 session-to-lesson pairs, we found that training performance significantly predicted real-life transcript scores with an effect size of 0.25 SD. Model comparison (AIC/BIC) indicated averaging open response and multiple choice performance during training predicted real-life tutor performance best, although open responses were comparatively more predictive. Exploratory analysis showed that after training, tutors were significantly more likely to encounter pedagogical opportunities to apply their skills (61.1% to 68.9%) and demonstrated higher execution quality within those opportunities (65.5% to 68.1%). Interrupted time series analysis suggested that these tutor improvements were part of a gradual trend over time rather than an immediate intervention effect of training. We illustrate an AI-driven method to link tutor training with real-life assessment. In doing so, we contribute open datasets, AI prompts, and scoring rubrics to support transparency and reproducibility.

LearnOpt: Recovering the Latent Cognitive Structure of Standardized Examinations via Knowledge Graphs and Constrained Optimization

Standardized examinations are typically treated as uniform syllabus coverage problems. We argue they are better understood as adversarial systems with stable latent cognitive structures diverging systematically from official syllabi. We introduce LearnOpt, which recovers this structure from historical question papers and generates personalized, time-bounded study plans. Applied to nine years of NEET questions (2016-2024, n=1,496), LearnOpt builds an exam knowledge graph from LLM-tagged questions, extracts a five-category latent skill distribution, and formulates study planning as a knapsack-variant optimization over prerequisite-aware subgraphs with Bayesian Knowledge Tracing. Central finding: NEET's latent skill distribution is stable within a syllabus regime (consecutive-year KL divergence 0.004-0.032 for 2016-2021, non-significant under permutation testing) but shifts significantly with NCERT's 2023 syllabus rationalization: pooling 2016-2021 (n=1,072) vs 2023-2024 (n=392) gives KL=0.040 (p=0.0005), with Elimination/Negation questions rising from ~20-29% to ~31-35%. Latent structure, while not permanently stationary, is piecewise stable, with shifts detectable and attributable to curricular events. Within either regime, subject predicts skill profile more strongly than year. An optimization evaluation, using one real and two synthetic mastery profiles, shows the skill-weighted objective produces a modest but real reordering of recommended topics over a mastery-conditioned frequency baseline. Applying the pipeline to JEE Advanced reveals a profile dominated by Multi-concept Integration (80.9% vs. 33.3% for NEET), with a JEE-vs-NEET divergence (KL=0.505) exceeding NEET's largest cross-subject divergence: exam tier shapes latent cognitive structure more than subject, which shapes it more than time within a regime. Code, knowledge graph, and annotated dataset are released publicly.

Impacts of Histories and Models on LLM Grading: A Study in Advanced Software Engineering Courses

Graduate-level research reading report assessment creates a substantial labor burden for educators. While large language models (LLMs) hold great potential for automating academic grading, their reliability for this specialized task remains understudied, particularly regarding grading consistency, the lack of which represents a primary obstacle to educational fairness. This paper proposes a human-aligned LLM-assisted grading workflow and presents a case study based on 180 student submissions from a graduate advanced software engineering course. We evaluate two mainstream LLMs, Grok and GPT, in terms of grading consistency and alignment with human scores. We find LLMs exhibit distinct levels of intra-model consistency and significant inter-model grading inconsistencies, while simple ensemble approaches cannot improve alignment with human evaluation. Critically, continuous interaction history drives systematic drift in models' grading standards away from human expert scores. Our findings demonstrate LLMs' potential in reducing grading workload for educators in graduate education, while highlighting that indiscriminate LLM grading may introduce systemic unfairness, suggesting that specific operational practices are required to mitigate such disparities.