mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Using Evidence-Centered Design to Guide Prompt Engineering in Measurement: An Illustration with Automated Essay Scoring

arXiv 2610.15231 ↗First posted 10 Oct 2026cs.AI cs.HCcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) models, particularly large language models (LLMs), are increasingly used in educational settings for tasks such as item generation, automated scoring, and feedback delivery. The quality of these outputs depends not only on the AI model but also on how users construct the prompts that guide model behaviors. Current prompt engineering practices are largely ad hoc, relying on trial and error rather than principled design. This lack of structure introduces validity threats including construct misrepresentation, construct-irrelevant variance, and limited reproducibility. We propose that Evidence-Centered Design (ECD), a framework in educational measurement for structuring valid inferences from observed performance, can serve as a principled foundation for prompt engineering in educational applications. We map the three core ECD models, the student model, the evidence model, and the task model, onto the components of educational prompt design, and describe a workflow for ECD-based prompt engineering. We derive five design principles from this mapping and present an empirical study contrasting ECD-designed prompts with state-of-the-art (SOTA) prompting baselines on an automated scoring task. Our empirical study demonstrates the usefulness of this framework on automated scoring. Results suggest that treating prompting as assessment design rather than informal instructions strengthens the validity, reliability, and fairness of AI-generated educational outputs.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Oct 2026.

Builds on

16 of 33 references.

References · 16

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  3. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  4. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
  5. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  6. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  7. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  8. 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,374
  9. 2021Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processingcited by 2,234
  10. 2021Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Modelscited by 1,392
  11. 2021Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivitycited by 1,135
  12. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
4 more
  1. 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 817
  2. 2023Better Zero-Shot Reasoning with Role-Play Promptingcited by 223
  3. 2024Calibrating Reasoning in Language Models with Internal Consistencycited by 28
  4. 2026Developing a Multi-Agent System to Generate Next Generation Science Assessments with Evidence-Centered Designcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.