I code or AI code: A comparative evaluation of AI-rated scores in classroom observations

Classroom videos contain observable teaching practices, but their pedagogical and visual signals are rarely organized in forms suitable for model evaluation. We present \textit{TeachObs}, a human-validated benchmark for multimodal teaching observation in classroom videos. \textit{TeachObs} includes 30 public lesson videos from eight countries divided into 5,158 fixed 15-second scenes. Seven researchers annotated each scene with 39 binary observation codes, covering 20 visual codes, such as gesture, board work, pointing, and visual materials, and 19 nonvisual codes, such as instruction, monitoring, questioning, feedback, and reflection. Gold segment labels are constructed using reliability- and prevalence-aware rules based on Krippendorff's alpha. In addition to segment-level labels, three expert raters produced lesson-level ratings and qualitative evaluations of instructional design, instructional delivery, learner response, learning materials, and lesson closure across the 30 lessons, with rater coverage detailed in the body. Using these two human reference layers, we evaluate five vision-capable frontier LLMs across three tracks - text-only segment coding, text + frame segment coding, and lesson-level coverage scored under an LLM-as-judge protocol - and find that no single model consistently outperforms others across all three tracks, that adding a mid-frame inflates both true and false attributions per scene, and that model evaluations over-rate procedurally clear lessons relative to expert raters. \textit{TeachObs} therefore supports both fine-grained annotation benchmarking and whole-lesson evaluation, showing where AI systems can assist classroom video analysis and where expert judgment remains necessary across varied subjects, classroom formats, and annotation difficulty levels.

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into educational assessment represents a transformative shift in classroom grading practices. While automated scoring systems and machine learning techniques have existed for decades, generative AI (GenAI) now enables educators to implement standards-based grading (SBG) with unprecedented efficiency and scale. This paper examines the theoretical foundations and evaluates an LLM grader that uses commercially available foundation models with context and prompt engineering to score student work against a rubric. Drawing on an empirical interrater agreement study using Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) data, we observed the Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) and Proportional Reduction in Mean-Squared Error (PRMSE) across mathematics, science, and ELA, using Claude Sonnet 4, Haiku 4.5, GPT-5, and GPT-5 Mini. The results demonstrate that LLM graders, especially when based on foundational models with more parameters, achieve substantial agreement with human raters in mathematics and science assessments, while the performances vary in ELA, suggesting generic foundation models can be effective at scoring in given contexts. Additional analysis of teacher and student feedback reveals strong acceptance of AI-generated narrative feedback but skepticism toward numerical scores, suggesting that LLMs function most effectively as formative tools rather than summative evaluators. Our findings indicate that thoughtfully designed hybrid models that combine AI efficiency with teacher judgment can reduce workload, enhance feedback quality, and support equitable assessment practices without displacing professional expertise.

Despite the widely recognized potential of AI in education, most prior work has focused on individualized student assistance. In contrast, the majority of educational practice worldwide still takes place in collective classroom settings. To enable researchers to study AI assistance in collective teaching, we introduce Edustories, a dataset of 1,492 teacher-written case studies describing real elementary and high-school classroom situations involving challenging student behavior, pedagogical interventions, and their outcomes. Among many other applications, Edustories enables evaluating LLMs' ability to predict the success of teacher interventions, crucial for providing practicing teachers with useful feedback. Comparing the latest models from four language-model families against expert assessments, we find that current models fall short of human expertise in predicting classroom outcomes; the strongest models reach 58% accuracy compared to 64% of human experts. This gap highlights both the limitations and the emerging potential of AI as assistants for practicing teachers.