The Aftermath of DrawEduMath: Vision Language Models Underperform with Struggling Students and Misdiagnose Errors

Effective mathematics education requires identifying and responding to students' mistakes. For AI to support pedagogical applications, models must perform well across different levels of student proficiency. Our work provides an extensive, year-long snapshot of how 11 vision-language models (VLMs) perform on DrawEduMath, a QA benchmark involving real students' handwritten, hand-drawn responses to math problems. We find that models' weaknesses concentrate on a core component of math education: student error. All evaluated VLMs underperform when describing work from students who require more pedagogical help, and across all QA, they struggle the most on questions related to assessing student error. Thus, while VLMs may be optimized to be math problem solving experts, our results suggest that they require alternative development incentives to adequately support educational use cases.

DrawEduMath: Evaluating Vision Language Models with Expert-Annotated Students' Hand-Drawn Math Images

In real-world settings, vision language models (VLMs) should robustly handle naturalistic, noisy visual content as well as domain-specific language and concepts. For example, K-12 educators using digital learning platforms may need to examine and provide feedback across many images of students' math work. To assess the potential of VLMs to support educators in settings like this one, we introduce DrawEduMath, an English-language dataset of 2,030 images of students' handwritten responses to K-12 math problems. Teachers provided detailed annotations, including free-form descriptions of each image and 11,661 question-answer (QA) pairs. These annotations capture a wealth of pedagogical insights, ranging from students' problem-solving strategies to the composition of their drawings, diagrams, and writing. We evaluate VLMs on teachers' QA pairs, as well as 44,362 synthetic QA pairs derived from teachers' descriptions using language models (LMs). We show that even state-of-the-art VLMs leave much room for improvement on DrawEduMath questions. We also find that synthetic QAs, though imperfect, can yield similar model rankings as teacher-written QAs. We release DrawEduMath to support the evaluation of VLMs' abilities to reason mathematically over images gathered with educational contexts in mind.