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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Evaluation workflow for the Writing section.
Figure 2: Inter-rater agreement analysis in the 2024 Calibration Phase.
Figure 3: AI model accuracy vs. average inter-rater agreement in the 2024 Calibration Phase.
Figure 4: AI model consistency analysis in the 2024 Calibration Phase. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 5: Human–AI agreement by rubric item for random samples from the 2024 and 2025 assessments. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 6: Agreement between AI-based and human scoring across performance levels
Figure 7: Agreement in pass-fail decisions for the overall assessment
Data Analytics Lab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1050 Brussel, Belgium · School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA