PreprintCited by 0Artificial Intelligence in EducationEducational Technology and AssessmentStudent Assessment and Feedback

The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

A Human-in-the-Loop Framework for AI-Assisted Scoring in Large-Scale Writing Assessment

Open access

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.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2609.05143

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Metadata

Authors
Curi, M. E., Capdehourat, G., Amigo, I., Romano, M., Serra, R., Silveira, A., & Peri, A.
Affiliations
Plan Ceibal (UY)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7211887223
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
human-in-the-loop, large language models, automated essay scoring, national assessment, human-rater agreement, cognitive biases

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