The design and validation of an AI-assisted scoring framework for written responses in a large-scale national assessment and the results show moderate to high agreement between the model and human evaluations in most dimensions, supporting the feasibility of AI assistance in this setting.
Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), into educational assessment has opened new opportunities to enhance the efficiency and scalability of grading processes. This study presents the design and validation of an AI-assisted scoring framework for written responses in a large-scale national assessment. The proposed approach focuses on short written texts of approximately 150-200 words and incorporates a human-in-the-loop strategy to preserve assessment quality while reducing manual workload. The study is grounded in a real operational context, using data from two recent editions of a nationwide test, each comprising approximately 5,000 student responses. We analyze the alignment between AI-generated scores and human raters across multiple rubric dimensions, as well as the impact of the proposed decision flow on pass/fail outcomes. Results show moderate to high agreement between the model and human evaluations in most dimensions, supporting the feasibility of AI assistance in this setting. Moreover, the proposed correction workflow identifies cases where human review is most valuable, enabling a more efficient allocation of expert effort. The findings suggest that AI-assisted scoring can be safely integrated into large-scale assessment processes only when combined with carefully designed human oversight. The paper concludes by discussing practical implications for deployment in national assessment systems and outlining future research directions, including longitudinal monitoring of model-human alignment and the analysis of potential cognitive bias introduced by AI-supported review workflows.
This study examines the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of three AI tools (ChatGPT 3.5, Gemini, YouChat) and four human raters in evaluating English writing skills using the multifaceted Rasch model. The evaluation focuses on the consistency and dependability of scores assigned by the AI tools compared to human judgment....
Hatice Gurdil, Hatice Ozlem Anadol, Salih Salihoğlu et al.· Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Der...· 0 citations
The use of Large Language Models (LLM) has become a key to transforming the educational landscapes and enabling intelligent, adaptive learning through the help of GPT-4 and Llama series. This paper gives an in-depth discussion of the contribution of LLMs in the field of education starting with the initial work done usi...
Chintan Chatterjee, Umang Patel, Jaydeep Vala et al.· 2026 International Conferenc...· 0 citations
Findings indicate that AI tools can complement expert judgment in content validity assessment when methodological control is ensured and highlights the potential of hybrid human–AI frameworks in educational measurement, while emphasizing the importance of model transparency and context management.
Hatice Gurdil, Hatice Ozlem Anadol, Yeşim Beril Soğuksu· Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim B...· 1 citation
The results revealed that ChatGPT-4's internal consistency was moderate and was markedly improved by detailed prompts on content-related dimensions, but showed minimal gains on linguistic dimensions (LR/GRA).
Boyu Wang, Yun-Jian Zhang· Language Education & Ass...· 0 citations
Although LLM-based benchmark ratings can approximate expert judgments and reduce the need for labor-intensive human triple coding, limitations remain regarding cost, genre- and task specificity, and sensitivity to text presentation and student grade level—factors that constrain immediate classroom use, particularly for...