In the modern educational landscape, higher education institutions face many challenges. Manual grading for open-ended exam questions consumes valuable time which delays the feedback students need for meaningful learning. Large class sizes compound these issues, leaving educators overwhelmed and students underserved. In traditional systems, personalised feedback—key to identifying knowledge gaps—is often unattainable.
Enter Artificial Intelligence (AI), and more specifically, Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4o, which promise to revolutionise educational assessments. My research explored how these GenAI models could automate grading for graduate-level courses and generate actionable feedback, which would significantly reduce the burdens on educators while improving student learning.
A common student struggle: when feedback comes too late
Picture this: after weeks of tackling a brilliant but tough assignment, students eagerly submit their work, excited to know if their reasoning makes sense. Days pass. Then weeks. Then months…
The professor, juggling multiple courses, research and administrative responsibilities, simply doesn’t have the time to grade everything quickly. A few months later, an email finally arrives, but there is just a grade—no feedback, no explanation. By then, students have moved on—forgotten half of what they wrote, and lost the chance to learn from their mistakes.
It’s a familiar story in higher education everywhere. Professors are overloaded, and detailed feedback often takes a backseat. But imagine a world where AI-powered tools could provide instant grades and actionable insights when students actually needed them.
That’s the future of education—where learning doesn’t get lost in waiting.
AI is like Jarvis to an educator’s Iron Man suit—not replacing the hero, but giving them the tools to be more effective.
Why automated grading matters
Manual grading is not just time-consuming—it’s often inconsistent and lacks personalised insights that help students improve. Educators have to manage teaching, mentoring, and administrative tasks, which makes it nearly impossible to offer detailed feedback to every student.
AI-powered tools, like the one I developed for my research, effectively address these challenges. By leveraging LLMs such as ChatGPT-4o, the tool provides accurate grades for both theoretical and numerical questions based on provided grading criteria and correct answers. It also generates instant, personalised feedback, offering students insights into their knowledge gaps and freeing educators to focus on higher-value teaching activities such as personalised mentoring, designing innovative curricula and fostering critical thinking through interactive discussions.
In my study, the AI tool achieved a correlation of 0.96 with human expert graders and a Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) of just 7%. But what does this mean in practice?
- Correlation of 0.96: This means that AI-generated grades closely match those given by expert human graders. A perfect match would be 1.0, and 0.0 would mean no relationship. A score of 0.96 reveals that the AI tool evaluates student responses with almost the same accuracy and consistency as an expert human grader.
- MAPE of 7%: This measures how much AI’s grading deviates from an expert grader. A low 7% MAPE means minimal errors, making it a highly reliable grading tool for large student populations.
These metrics highlight that AI-powered grading is fast yet trustworthy and precise, making it a reliable solution for large-scale assessments. Refining grading rubrics and using more detailed reference data can further enhance accuracy.
How it works: AI-powered assessment in action
The tool operates by analysing a student’s response, comparing it to a base “true” answer provided by the educator, and applying grading rubrics that reflect the educator’s criteria. Here’s how it stands out:
- Rubric Adaptability: The tool was tested across varying levels of grading rubric detail—extensive, minimal, and none—to assess its impact on grading accuracy. Detailed rubrics and grading criteria allowed the tool to better customise to the educator’s needs. This also allowed AI to deliver consistent and fair results.
- Feedback Quality: Apart from assigning grades, the tool also generates actionable exam-level feedback. For instance, a student struggling with a concept receives targeted suggestions for improvement, helping them identify and improve weak areas.
- Consistency Across Iterations: Running the same dataset multiple times verified the tool’s reliability. Results showed minimal variation in performance which makes it dependable in high-stakes assessments.
The educational impact: AI as the superpower of educators
The impact of AI-powered grading extends far beyond speeding up assessments. Timely, personalised feedback helps students better understand their strengths and weaknesses while allowing educational institutions to scale assessments without sacrificing quality.
But we should address a key concern: Will AI replace human educators? The answer is a resounding NO. AI is not here to replace teachers; it is here to supercharge them.
AI is like Jarvis to an educator’s Iron Man suit—not replacing the hero, but giving them the tools to be more effective. With AI handling repetitive and time-consuming yet complex grading tasks, educators can:
- Devote more time to mentoring students individually.
- Focus on developing a more engaging and nuanced curriculum that reflects modern educational needs.
- Identify trends in student performance and adjust teaching methods to effectively address knowledge gaps.
AI does not make teachers obsolete; it empowers them to prioritise critical thinking, creativity, and deep learning over rote assessment. This shift fosters a dynamic learning environment where timely feedback drives continuous improvement.
For AI to truly enhance education, it must work alongside educators, combining automation’s speed with human adaptability and expertise to ensure a fair and effective learning experience.
Navigating challenges: the need for human oversight
AI-powered grading is efficient and scalable, but it sometimes struggles with nuance and context, leading to occasional inaccuracies. Human oversight is essential to ensure that AI-generated feedback is fair, meaningful, and aligned with educational goals.
Beyond accuracy, ethical concerns such as data privacy, potential bias, and over-reliance on AI must be carefully managed. In my research, I implemented a human-in-the-loop approach, where educators reviewed AI-generated results to maintain fairness and correctness. This blend of AI efficiency and human judgment creates a balanced and trustworthy assessment system.
For AI to truly enhance education, it must work alongside educators, combining automation’s speed with human adaptability and expertise to ensure a fair and effective learning experience.
A collaborative future for AI and educators
AI is reshaping education by making assessments smarter, feedback more actionable, and learning more personalised. It bridges the gap between delayed grading and real-time insights, allowing students to improve when it matters most. Providing feedback when concepts are fresh ensures better learning retention.
For educators, automated grading means less time spent on assessments and more time for teaching, mentoring, and curriculum innovation. AI isn’t replacing teachers—it’s empowering them to create a more personalised and effective learning experience. By integrating AI into education, we’re not just improving efficiency—we’re redefining how students learn, ensuring a smarter, fairer, and more impactful future of education.
License and Republishing
The Choice - Republishing rules
We publish under a Creative Commons license with the following characteristics Attribution/Sharealike.
- You may not make any changes to the articles published on our site, except for dates, locations (according to the news, if necessary), and your editorial policy. The content must be reproduced and represented by the licensee as published by The Choice, without any cuts, additions, insertions, reductions, alterations or any other modifications.If changes are planned in the text, they must be made in agreement with the author before publication.
- Please make sure to cite the authors of the articles, ideally at the beginning of your republication.
- It is mandatory to cite The Choice and include a link to its homepage or the URL of thearticle. Insertion of The Choice’s logo is highly recommended.
- The sale of our articles in a separate way, in their entirety or in extracts, is not allowed , but you can publish them on pages including advertisements.
- Please request permission before republishing any of the images or pictures contained in our articles. Some of them are not available for republishing without authorization and payment. Please check the terms available in the image caption. However, it is possible to remove images or pictures used by The Choice or replace them with your own.
- Systematic and/or complete republication of the articles and content available on The Choice is prohibited.
- Republishing The Choice articles on a site whose access is entirely available by payment or by subscription is prohibited.
- For websites where access to digital content is restricted by a paywall, republication of The Choice articles, in their entirety, must be on the open access portion of those sites.
- The Choice reserves the right to enter into separate written agreements for the republication of its articles, under the non-exclusive Creative Commons licenses and with the permission of the authors. Please contact The Choice if you are interested at contact@the-choice.org.
Individual cases
Extracts: It is recommended that after republishing the first few lines or a paragraph of an article, you indicate "The entire article is available on ESCP’s media, The Choice" with a link to the article.
Citations: Citations of articles written by authors from The Choice should include a link to the URL of the authors’ article.
Translations: Translations may be considered modifications under The Choice's Creative Commons license, therefore these are not permitted without the approval of the article's author.
Modifications: Modifications are not permitted under the Creative Commons license of The Choice. However, authors may be contacted for authorization, prior to any publication, where a modification is planned. Without express consent, The Choice is not bound by any changes made to its content when republished.
Authorized connections / copyright assignment forms: Their use is not necessary as long as the republishing rules of this article are respected.
Print: The Choice articles can be republished according to the rules mentioned above, without the need to include the view counter and links in a printed version.
If you choose this option, please send an image of the republished article to The Choice team so that the author can review it.
Podcasts and videos: Videos and podcasts whose copyrights belong to The Choice are also under a Creative Commons license. Therefore, the same republishing rules apply to them.
