By Lilian H. Hill
Knowledge assessment
determines how well students have learned and evaluates the effectiveness of
teaching content and strategies for future improvement (Hill, 2020). Research
has shown that incorporating knowledge assessments and effective feedback during
instruction can boost both student motivation and overall learning
effectiveness (Minn, 2022). AI innovations in education promise faster,
scalable, and personalized guidance for learning. While AI-based automation can
reduce the labor-intensive aspects of conducting learning assessments, its true
value lies in enabling a deeper understanding of students and freeing up time
to respond creatively to teachable moments. A key priority with AI is ensuring
that humans remain actively involved and in control, with attention given to
all those participating in the process—students, educators, and others who
support learners (U.S. Department of Education, 2023). This blog post explores the opportunities and limitations of using AI for
feedback and assessment, along with best practices for effective integration.
Opportunities
AI-driven personalized inputs are
revolutionizing education by creating dynamic, tailored learning experiences
that foster student engagement, improve learning outcomes, and equip
individuals with the skills needed to thrive in a rapidly evolving world. AI
recognizes patterns within data and automates decisions to create an adaptive
learning environment, a technology-enhanced educational system that uses data
and algorithms to personalize instruction in real time, based on each learner’s
performance, needs, and preferences. Effective adaptive
learning environments depend on three key adaptations: (a) delivering precise,
timely, and meaningful feedback during problem-solving, and (b) organizing
learning content to match each student’s unique skill level and proficiency,
and (c) enhancing formative assessment feedback loops.
1. Timely
and Scalable Feedback
AI feedback leverages advancements
in natural language processing to provide automated, personalized evaluations
that can be scaled according to predefined criteria. AI systems can deliver
instant feedback at scale, which is valuable in large classes or for repetitive
tasks. According to a 2025 review of educational measurement technology,
AI-powered scoring and personalized feedback enhance consistency and speed in
assessment delivery. Drawing on extensive linguistic databases, these systems
generate responses that mimic human engagement with student work. This
technology has sparked considerable discussion in academic contexts, with the
potential to transform teaching and learning practices (Zapata et al., 2025).
2. Personalized
Input and Adaptive Growth
Adaptive learning systems are
essential for delivering personalized experiences in online instruction,
particularly for those courses with large enrollment, such as MOOCS or
Intelligent Tutoring Systems. For example, in a randomized controlled trial
involving 259 undergraduates, researchers found that students receiving
AI-generated feedback showed significant improvements across various writing
dimensions compared to traditional instruction, with particularly strong
effects on organization and content development (Zhang, 2025). The
intervention also revealed that students valued usefulness over surface ease of
use.
3. Enhanced
Formative Assessment Loops
Technological interventions can
create more personalized, timely feedback loops that facilitate deeper
engagement with learning. Formative assessment has long been a central
application of educational technology, as feedback loops are essential for
enhancing teaching and learning. AI may enable richer feedback loops by
supporting formative assessment—when paired intentionally with human
oversight—helping teachers adapt instruction based on student progress.
Limitations and Key Concerns
Creating machine learning models
that deliver meaningful, personalized, and authentic feedback demands
substantial involvement from human domain experts. Choices about whose
expertise is included, how it is gathered, and when it is significantly applied
influence the relevance and quality of the feedback produced. These models also
require ongoing maintenance and refinement to align with changing contexts,
evolving theories, and diverse student needs. Without continuous updates,
feedback can quickly become outdated or misaligned with current learner
requirements. Key limitations include (a) concerns about AI system accuracy, (b)
loss of contextual understanding and embedded bias, (c) overreliance that
diminishes human interaction, and (d) important ethical and pedagogical
challenges.
1. Accuracy
Researchers have recorded numerous
cases of AI systems making harmful decisions due to coding errors or biased
training data. Such failures have rendered inaccurate teaching evaluations, caused
job and license losses, and discriminated based on names, addresses, gender,
and skin color. AI systems can sometimes exploit shortcuts without capturing
the deeper intent of their designers or the domain’s full complexity. For
instance, a 2017 image recognition system “cheated” by identifying a copyright
tag linked to horse images instead of learning to recognize images of horses
(Sample, 2017).
2. Context
Loss and Bias
Lindsay et al. (2025) note that the
convenience of automation carries the risk of neglecting the distinct needs of
minority or atypical learners because they are more difficult to standardize
and address. For example, automated essay scoring (AES) systems often rely on
surface features like essay length or keywords, making them insensitive to
nuance, creativity, and accurate content understanding. In experiments with
several chatbots, Taylor (2024) found that AI-generated feedback tends to be
generic and provide variations of the same feedback for multiple students
(Taylor, 2024). Algorithmic bias is also a concern. Models trained on
unbalanced data can amplify cultural or linguistic disparities, potentially
disadvantaging Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) or non‑native
English speakers unless bias mitigation strategies are in place.
3. Over-reliance
and Reduced Human Interaction
Evidence suggests that when
students depend too heavily on AI-generated feedback, their opportunities for
critical reflection and dialogue diminish, both key foundations for
higher-order thinking and deep learning. A recent comparative study found that
students tend to mistrust AI feedback when it is not combined with human
guidance, while academic staff were more open, especially if AI suggestions
augmented rather than replaced instructor feedback (Henderson et al., 2025). Moreover,
educators’ reflections indicate that adopting AI for meaningful feedback may serve
to increase instructor workload and complexity compared to traditional teaching
methods, especially when contextual interpretation is needed (Taylor, 2024).
4. Ethical
and Pedagogical Considerations
Generative AI tools raise
essential ethical dimensions—notably involving participation, impact, fairness,
and evolution over time. Unless systems are carefully designed to be inclusive,
AI-generated feedback may marginalize minority learners with unique needs (Lindsay et al., 2025). The
National Council on Educational Measurement’s AIME group has similarly stressed
validity, equity, and transparency as pillars for responsible AI in educational
measurement (Bulut et al., 2024). With thoughtful implementation, ethical
frameworks, educator training, and human oversight, AI can enhance education
without sacrificing critical thinking or integrity.
Best Practices for Implementation
- Keep humans in the loop. Use AI as a
supplement, not a replacement, for instructor-led feedback and assessment.
- Pilot first. Collect user feedback on pilot
deployments before full-scale adoption to ensure transparency, acceptance,
and reliability.
- Disclose AI use. State clearly when AI tools
produce summaries or initial feedback, including platform and prompt
details when appropriate.
- Educate users. Teach students to interpret AI
output critically and support educators in leveraging feedback
meaningfully.
- Audit for bias and fairness. Apply algorithmic
audits and explainable AI techniques to evaluate model performance across
diverse groups.
References
Bulut, O., Beiting-Parrish, M., Casablanca,
J. M., Slater, S. C., Jiao, H., Song, D. … Morilova, P. (2024). The Rise of
Artificial Intelligence in Educational Measurement: Opportunities and Ethical
Challenges. Journal of Educational Measurement and Evaluation, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.59863/miql7785
Henderson, M., Bearman,
M., Chung, J., Fawns, T., Buckingham Shum, S., Matthews, K. E., & de Mello
Heredia, J. (2025). Comparing Generative AI and teacher feedback: Student
perceptions of usefulness and trustworthiness. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2502582
Hill, L. H. (Ed.). (2020). Assessment,
evaluation, and accountability in adult education. Stylus Publishing.
Minn, S. (2022). AI-assisted knowledge
assessment techniques for adaptive learning environments. Computers and
Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100050
Sample, I. (5 November 2017). Computer says
no: Why making Ais fair, accountable, and transparent is critical. The
Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/nov/05/computer-says-no-why-making-ais-fair-accountable-and-transparent-is-crucial
Taylor, P. (2024, September 6). The imperfect
tutor: Grading, feedback and AI. Inside Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/career-advice/teaching/2024/09/06/challenges-using-ai-give-feedback-and-grade-students?utm_source=chatgpt.com
U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Technology (2023). Artificial intelligence and future of
teaching and learning: Insights and recommendations. Washington, DC.
Zapata, G. C., Cope, B., Kalantzis, M.,
Tzirides, A. O. (Olnancy), Saini, A. K., Searsmith, D., … Abrantes da Silva, R.
(2025). AI and peer reviews in higher education: Students’ multimodal views on
benefits, differences and limitations. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2025.2480807
Zhang, K. (2025). Enhancing Critical
Writing Through AI Feedback: A Randomized Control Study. Behavioral Sciences,
15(5):600. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050600