Cited by 70Artificial Intelligence in EducationIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningEducational Technology and Assessment

Opportunities and challenges of using generative AI to personalize educational assessment

Open access
Arslan, Burcu, Lehman, Blair, Tenison, Caitlin, Sparks, Jesse R., López, Alexis A., Gu, Lin, Zapata-Rivera, Diego·2024·Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

In line with the positive effects of personalized learning, personalized assessments are expected to maximize learner motivation and engagement, allowing learners to show what they truly know and can do. Considering the advances in Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), in this perspective article, we elaborate on the opportunities of integrating GenAI into personalized educational assessments to maximize learner engagement, performance, and access. We also draw attention to the challenges of integrating GenAI into personalized educational assessments regarding its potential risks to the assessment’s core values of validity, reliability, and fairness. Finally, we discuss possible solutions and future directions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/frai.2024.1460651

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • GenAI's capacity to generate text, images, code, and other multimodal content opens new space for personalization, learner-AI co-creation, and immersive assessment while surfacing questions about role allocation, ethical governance, and evaluating impact at scale.

    “By contrast, GenAI's capacity to generate text, images, code, and other multimodal content [39-41] opens genuinely new space for personalization, learner-AI co-creation, and immersive assessment-while simultaneously surfacing fresh questions about role allocation, ethical governance, and how to evaluate impact at scale [42].”

    From A Systematic Review of Generative AI in K–12: Mapping Goals, Activities, Roles, and Outcomes via the 3P Model (2025) · cites this paper as [42]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Ali M. R. Razavi S. Z. Langevin R. Al Mamun A. Kane B. (2020). “A virtual conversational agent for teens with autism spectrum disorder: experimental results and design lessons.” In Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on intelligent virtual agents (pp. 1–8).
  2. Amirizaniani M. Yao J. Lavergne A. Okada E. S. Chadha A. (2024). Developing a framework for auditing large language models using human-in-the-loop. arXiv preprint at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.16809 · arXiv
  3. Arslan B. (2024). Personalized, adaptive, and inclusive digital assessment and learning environments. [conference presentation]. E-ADAPT conference, Potsdam, Germany. Available at: https://osf.io/82p5f/?view_only=cba3f410bc1e462fb086e3361ffed0bc (Accessed September 04, 2024).
  4. Barany A. Nasiar N. Porter C. Zambrano A. F. Andres A. L. (2024). “ChatGPT for education research: exploring the potential of large language models for qualitative codebook development.” In International conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 134–149). Cham: springer Nature Switzerland.
  5. Bender E. M. Gebru T. McMillan-Major A. Shmitchell S. (2021). “On the dangers of stochastic parrots: can language models be too big?”. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 610–623).
  6. Forsyth C.M. Zapata-Rivera D. Graf A. Jiang Y. (2024). “Complex conversations: LLMs vs. knowledge engineered conversation-based assessment.” In Proceedings of the international conference on educational data mining.
  7. Greshake K. Abdelnabi S. Mishra S. Endres C. Holz T. Fritz M. (2023). “Not what you've signed up for: compromising real-world LLM-integrated applications with indirect prompt injection.” In Proceedings of the 16th ACM workshop on artificial intelligence and security (pp. 79–90).
  8. Hu X. (2023). “Empowering education with LLMs - the next gen interface and content generation workshop [demo].” Presented at the international conference on artificial intelligence in education (Tokyo, Japan, July 03-07, 2023). AIED 2023.
  9. Kochmar E. Vu D. D. Belfer R. Gupta V. Serban I. V. Pineau J. (2020). “Automated personalized feedback improves learning gains in an intelligent tutoring system.” Artificial intelligence in education: 21st international conference, AIED 2020, Ifrane, Morocco, July 6–10, 2020, Proceedings, Part II, 12164, 140–146.
  10. Olney A. (2023). “Generating multiple choice questions from a textbook: LLMs match human performance on most metrics.” Paper presented at the empowering education with LLMs - the next gen interface and content generation workshop at AIED 2023 (Tokyo, Japan, July 03–07).
  11. Xhakaj F. Aleven V. McLaren B. M. (2017). “Effects of a dashboard for an intelligent tutoring system on teacher knowledge, lesson plans and class sessions.” In Artificial intelligence in education: 18th international conference, AIED 2017, Wuhan, China, June 28–July 1, 2017, Proceedings 18 (pp. 582–585). Springer International Publishing.
  12. Zapata-Rivera D. Forsyth C. M. Graf A. Jiang Y. (2024). “Designing and evaluating evidence-centered-design-based conversations for assessment with LLMs.” Proceedings of EDM 2024 workshop: Leveraging large language models for next generation educational technologies.
  13. Zapata-Rivera D. Lehman B. Sparks J. R. (2020). “Learner modeling in the context of caring assessments.” In Adaptive instructional systems: Second international conference, AIS 2020, held as part of the 22nd HCI international conference, HCII 2020, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 19–24, 2020, Proceedings 22 (pp. 422–431). Springer International Publishing.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arslan, B., Lehman, B., Tenison, C., Sparks, J. R., López, A. A., Gu, L., & Zapata-Rivera, D.
Affiliations
Educational Testing Service (US)
Corresponding author
Arslan, Burcu
Venue
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
Published
2024-10-07
Volume
7
Pages
1460651-1460651
ISSN
2624-8212 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403202015
Cited by
52
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 26
FWCI
3.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Institute of Education Sciences
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
Keywords
generative AI, individualized assessment, personalized learning, educational assessment, student engagement, assessment validity, assessment reliability, assessment fairness, artificial intelligence in education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review