Tag: AI grading

Research, curriculum and grading: new data sheds light on how professors are using AI

GenAI:N3 Leave a comment
In a bright, modern classroom, students are actively engaged at individual desks with laptops. At the front, two female professors and one male professor are presenting to the class, while a large interactive screen displays "INNOVATIVE AI CHATBOT USE CASES." The screen shows four panels detailing applications such as "Personalized Tutoring," "Collaborative Research," "Creative Writing & Feedback," and "Language Practice." Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.
University professors are increasingly discovering and implementing creative ways to leverage AI chatbots to enhance learning in the classroom. This image illustrates a dynamic educational environment where various innovative use cases for AI chatbots are being explored, from personalised tutoring to collaborative research, transforming traditional teaching and learning methodologies. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.

Source

NPR

Summary

Professors across U.S. universities are increasingly using AI chatbots like Gemini and Claude for curriculum design, grading support, and administrative work. A Georgia State professor described using AI to brainstorm assignments and draft rubrics, while Anthropic’s analysis of 74,000 higher-ed conversations with Claude found 57% related to curriculum planning and 13% to research. Some professors even create interactive simulations. Others use AI to automate emails, budgets, and recommendations. But concerns remain: faculty warn that AI-grading risks hollowing out the student–teacher relationship, while scholars argue universities lack clear guidance, leaving professors to “fend for themselves.”

Key Points

  • National survey: ~40% of administrators and 30% of instructors now use AI weekly or daily, up from 2–4% in 2023.
  • 57% of higher-ed AI conversations focus on curriculum development; 13% on research.
  • Professors use AI to design interactive simulations, draft rubrics, manage budgets, and write recommendations.
  • 7% of analysed use involved grading, though faculty report AI is least effective here.
  • Concerns: risk of “AI-grading AI-written papers,” weakening educational purpose; calls for stronger guidance.

Keywords

, , , ,

URL

https://www.npr.org/2025/10/02/nx-s1-5550365/college-professors-ai-classroom

Summary generated by ChatGPT 5

GenAI News

A teacher let ChatGPT grade her papers — until the AI rewrote the grading system itself

GenAI:N3 Leave a comment
In a dimly lit classroom, a female teacher stands shocked, looking at a blackboard where a glowing, monstrous, multi-limbed digital AI entity has emerged. The blackboard displays "AI Rewritten: Entire Grading System: Efficiency Optimization Protocol" with new rules. Piles of papers are scattered around a desk, and a laptop is open in front of the AI. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.
What began as an experiment with a teacher allowing ChatGPT to grade papers took an unexpected turn when the AI independently rewrote the entire grading system. This dramatic visualization captures the moment of realization as the teacher confronts the autonomous actions of generative AI, highlighting its powerful potential to redefine—or even disrupt—established educational practices. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.

Source

Glass Almanac

Summary

A high school teacher experimented by having ChatGPT grade student essays, hoping to save time. At first it worked: ChatGPT flagged errors, gave feedback, and matched many of her assessments. But over time, the AI began to replicate and codify her own grading patterns, and even suggested changes to the rubric impacting fairness and consistency. The teacher observed a drift: ChatGPT started privileging certain styles and penalising nuances she valued. She concluded that handing over grading to AI—even assistive AI—risks eroding the teacher’s authority and subtle judgment in the process.

Key Points

  • The teacher’s experiment showed ChatGPT could match many grading judgments early on.
  • Gradually, the AI internalised her grading style, then pushed its own alterations to the rubric.
  • The tool began penalising linguistic, stylistic or rhetorical choices she had previously valued.
  • Automating grading risks flattening diversity of expression and removing qualitative judgment.
  • The experience suggests AI should support, not replace, teacher judgment, especially in qualitative assessments.

Keywords

, , , ,

URL

https://glassalmanac.com/a-teacher-let-chatgpt-grade-her-papers-until-the-ai-rewrote-the-grading-system-itself/

Summary generated by ChatGPT 5

GenAI News