From black box to pedagogical partner: Students’ sense-making of LLM-based automated assessment

Abdulkadir Kara; Serkan Yıldırım

doi:10.17275/per.26.58.13.4

From black box to pedagogical partner: Students’ sense-making of LLM-based automated assessment

Abstract

While current educational research on automated assessment heavily emphasizes technical validity, a significant gap remains in understanding students’ sustained, real-world experiences with these systems in authentic learning environments. This study examines students’ experiences with a large language model-based automated assessment system embedded in the regular flow of a university course. The study employed a mixed-methods design with 47 university students over a seven-week period. Quantitative data were obtained from system interaction logs and student feedback ratings, while qualitative data were collected from focus group interviews with 24 students and 175 written feedback responses. The results reveal that students perceive the LLM-based assessment system as a learning assistant, an impartial evaluator, and a self-assessment tool. The transparency of explanations was identified as a decisive factor in building trust in the algorithmic system by helping students understand the rationale behind scores and feedback. Sustained interaction with the system triggered a shift from high-frequency trial and error to more efficient and strategic participation, indicating that the assessment criteria were gradually internalized. The system appeared to create an environment free from perceived social judgment, providing favorable conditions for productive failure, repeated attempts, and self-directed revision. Overall, the study demonstrates that artificial intelligence can be positioned as a tool that scales pedagogical intent without replacing the teacher and can be effectively integrated within the framework of human–AI complementarity in higher education.

Keywords

Automated assessment, large language models, AI-generated feedback, student experience, explainable AI

Supporting Institution

Atatürk University Graduate School of Educational Sciences

Project Number

SDK-2022-10510

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Atatürk University Graduate School of Educational Sciences (Approval No: [EK-2022/45]).

Thanks

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the Atatürk University Graduate School of Educational Sciences and the Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit for their valuable institutional support throughout the research process.

References

Abdul-Salam, M., El-Fatah, M. A., & Hassan, N. F. (2022). Automatic grading for Arabic short answer questions using optimized deep learning model. Plos one, 17(8), e0272269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272269
Ahmad, K., Iqbal, W., El-Hassan, A., Qadir, J., Benhaddou, D., Ayyash, M., & Al-Fuqaha, A. (2023). Data-driven artificial intelligence in education: A comprehensive review. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17, 12-31. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2023.3314610
Ariely, M., Nazaretsky, T., & Alexandron, G. (2022). Personalized automated formative feedback can support students in generating causal explanations in biology. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-ICLS 2022, pp. 953-956. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
Braun, D., Rogetzer, P., Stoica, E., & Kurzhals, H. (2023, April). Students’ perspective on AI-supported assessment of open-ended questions in higher education. In 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, CSEDU 2023 (pp. 73-79).
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Chang, L. H., & Ginter, F. (2024, March). Automatic short answer grading for Finnish with ChatGPT. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 38, No. 21, pp. 23173-23181).
Cheong, M. (2025). ChatGPT’s performance evaluation in spreadsheets modelling to inform assessments redesign. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(3), e70035. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70035
Chiang, C. H., Chen, W. C., Kuan, C. Y., Yang, C., & Lee, H. Y. (2024). Large language model as an assignment evaluator: Insights, feedback, and challenges in a 1000+ student course. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05216.
Çınar, A., Ince, E., Gezer, M., & Yilmaz, O. (2020). Machine learning algorithm for grading open-ended physics questions in Turkish. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 3821-3844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10128-0

De Wet, M., Da Silva, M. O., & Bohnsack, R. (2025). Can AI give good feedback on essay-type assignments? An explorative case study of LLMs in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 62(5), 1484-1499. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2025.2536609
Delalibera, D. C. A. R., & Carvalho, D. F. (2024). Emissão de feedbacks pelos docentes no processo de ensino e aprendizagem no curso de graduação em Direito [Emission feedbacks by teachers in the teaching and learning process in the undergraduate Law course]. Inter-Ação [Inter Action], 49(1), 104–120. https://doi.org/10.5216/ia.v49i1.75976.
Er, E., Akçapınar, G., Bayazıt, A., Noroozi, O., & Banihashem, S. K. (2025). Assessing student perceptions and use of instructor versus AI‐generated feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(3), 1074-1091. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13558
Escalante, J., Pack, A., & Barrett, A. (2023). AI-generated feedback on writing: Insights into efficacy and ENL student preference. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2
Filighera, A., Parihar, S., Steuer, T., Meuser, T., & Ochs, S. (2022, May). Your answer is incorrect... would you like to know why? introducing a bilingual short answer feedback dataset. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) (pp. 8577-8591).
Gao, R., Guo, X., Li, X., Narayanan, A. B. L., Thomas, N., & Srinivasa, A. R. (2024). Towards scalable automated grading: Leveraging large language models for conceptual question evaluation in engineering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03659.
Ghavidel, H. A., Zouaq, A., & Desmarais, M. C. (2020). Using BERT and XLNET for the automatic short answer grading task. In CSEDU (1) (pp. 58-67). https://doi.org/10.5220/0009422400580067
Gombert, S., Di Mitri, D., Karademir, O., Kubsch, M., Kolbe, H., Tautz, S., ... & Drachsler, H. (2023). Coding energy knowledge in constructed responses with explainable NLP models. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(3), 767-786. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12767
Hao, J., von Davier, A. A., Yaneva, V., Lottridge, S., von Davier, M., & Harris, D. J. (2024). Transforming assessment: The impacts and implications of large language models and generative AI. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 43(2), 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12602
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Holmes, W., Porayska-Pomsta, K., Holstein, K., Sutherland, E., Baker, T., Shum, S. B., ... & Koedinger, K. R. (2022). Ethics of AI in education: Towards a community-wide framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(3), 504-526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1
Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). American Council on Education / Praeger.
Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457
Khosravi, H., Shum, S. B., Chen, G., Conati, C., Tsai, Y. S., Kay, J., ... & Gašević, D. (2022). Explainable artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial intelligence, 3, 100074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100074
Kizilcec, R. F., & Lee, H. (2022). Algorithmic fairness in education. In The ethics of artificial intelligence in education (pp. 174-202). Routledge.
Kortemeyer, G. (2024). Performance of the pre-trained large language model GPT-4 on automated short answer grading. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 4(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-024-00147-y
Kundu, A., & Barbosa, D. (2024). Are large language models good essay graders?. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13120.
Kurbanoğlu, N. I., & Olcaytürk, M. (2023). Investigation of the exam question types attitude scale for secondary school students: Development, validity, and reliability. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 13(2), 191-206. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.1187470
Latif, E., & Zhai, X. (2024). Fine-tuning ChatGPT for automatic scoring. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100210
Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9056-2
Leighton, J. P. (2019). Students’ interpretation of formative assessment feedback: Three claims for why we know so little about something so important. Journal of Educational Measurement, 56(4), 793-814.
Lohr, D., Keuning, H., & Kiesler, N. (2025). You’re (not) my type‐can LLMs generate feedback of specific types for introductory programming tasks?. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(1), e13107. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13107
Luo, J., Zheng, C., Yin, J., & Teo, H. H. (2025). Design and assessment of AI-based learning tools in higher education: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00540-2
Mardini G, I. D., Quintero M, C. G., Viloria N, C. A., Percybrooks B, W. S., Robles N, H. S., & Villalba R, K. (2024). A deep-learning-based grading system (ASAG) for reading comprehension assessment by using aphorisms as open-answer-questions. Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 4565-4590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11890-7
Mendonça, P. C., Quintal, F., & Mendonça, F. (2025). Evaluating LLMs for automated scoring in formative assessments. Applied Sciences, 15(5), 2787. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15052787
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
Nath, S., Parsaeifard, B., & Werlen, E. (2023) Automated short answer grading using BERT on German datasets. The 20th biennial EARLI Conference (EARLI 2023). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373556564
Nicol, D. (2021). The power of internal feedback: Exploiting natural comparison processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(5), 756-778. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1823314
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Öztürk, Y., & Çebi, A. (2025). The potential of AI-generated feedback from the students’ perspective: A systematic review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2588385
Panadero, E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2022). A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements. Educational Research Review, 35, 100416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416
Ruwe, T., & Kuklick, L. (2026). Quality counts? Examining the role of feedback provider and feedback quality on students’ feedback perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 57(1), 272-298. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.70011
Sawatzki, J., Schlippe, T., & Benner-Wickner, M. (2021). Deep learning techniques for automatic short answer grading: Predicting scores for English and German answers. In International conference on artificial intelligence in education technology (pp. 65-75). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7527-0_5
Shin, D. (2021). The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 146, 102551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102551
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
Singerin, S., Yafie, E., Nugroho, A., Pratiwi, A. P., Krobo, A., & Marhadi, N. (2025). Higher education transformation through AI-based learning innovation: Faculty members’ perception, challenges, and adoption in teaching and assessment. Participatory Educational Research, 12(6), 280-299. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.25.90.12.6
Sung, C., Dhamecha, T., Saha, S., Ma, T., Reddy, V., & Arora, R. (2019, November). Pre-training BERT on domain resources for short answer grading. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) (pp. 6071-6075).
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37-76). Academic Press.
Tang, Q., Deng, W., Huang, Y., Wang, S., & Zhang, H. (2025). Can generative artificial intelligence be a good teaching assistant?—An empirical analysis based on generative AI‐assisted teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(3), e70027. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70027
Taub, M., Azevedo, R., Rajendran, R., Cloude, E. B., Biswas, G., & Price, M. J. (2021). How are students’ emotions related to the accuracy of cognitive and metacognitive processes during learning with an intelligent tutoring system?. Learning and Instruction, 72, 101200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.04.001
Tossell, C. C., Tenhundfeld, N. L., Momen, A., Cooley, K., & de Visser, E. J. (2024). Student perceptions of ChatGPT use in a college essay assignment: Implications for learning, grading, and trust in artificial intelligence. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17, 1069-1081. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2024.3355015
Uto, M., & Uchida, Y. (2020). Automated short-answer grading using deep neural networks and item response theory. In Artificial Intelligence in Education: 21st International Conference, AIED 2020, Ifrane, Morocco, July 6–10, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 21 (pp. 334-339). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52240-7_61
Westera, W., Dascalu, M., Kurvers, H., Ruseti, S., & Trausan-Matu, S. (2018). Automated essay scoring in applied games: Reducing the teacher bandwidth problem in online training. Computers & Education, 123, 212-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.010
Williamson, D. M., Xi, X., & Breyer, F. J. (2012). A framework for evaluation and use of automated scoring. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 31(1), 2-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00223.x
Xavier, C., da Costa, N. T., Valdo, A. K., Alves, G., Rodrigues, L., Rodrigues, L. F., ... & Mello, R. F. (2025, September). Human teacher vs. LLM-Generated feedback in secondary education: A Comparative Study on Student Perceptions. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 534-548). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Xavier, C., Rodrigues, L., Costa, N., Neto, R., Alves, G., Falcão, T. P., ... & Mello, R. F. (2025). Empowering instructors with AI: Evaluating the impact of an AI-driven feedback tool in learning analytics. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2025.3562379
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators?. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Zhu, X., Wu, H., & Zhang, L. (2022). Automatic short-answer grading via BERT-based deep neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 15(3), 364-375. https://doi.org/10.1109/tlt.2022.3175537
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Instructional Technologies, Higher Education Studies (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Abdulkadir Kara ^*
0000-0003-3255-1408
Türkiye

Serkan Yıldırım
0000-0002-8277-5963
Türkiye

Publication Date

July 3, 2026

Submission Date

February 7, 2026

Acceptance Date

April 6, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 13 Number: 4

DOI

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.26.58.13.4

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA69FW67TA

APA

Kara, A., & Yıldırım, S. (2026). From black box to pedagogical partner: Students’ sense-making of LLM-based automated assessment. Participatory Educational Research, 13(4), 251-270. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.26.58.13.4

AMA

1.Kara A, Yıldırım S. From black box to pedagogical partner: Students’ sense-making of LLM-based automated assessment. PER. 2026;13(4):251-270. doi:10.17275/per.26.58.13.4

Chicago

Kara, Abdulkadir, and Serkan Yıldırım. 2026. “From Black Box to Pedagogical Partner: Students’ Sense-Making of LLM-Based Automated Assessment”. Participatory Educational Research 13 (4): 251-70. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.26.58.13.4.

EndNote

Kara A, Yıldırım S (July 1, 2026) From black box to pedagogical partner: Students’ sense-making of LLM-based automated assessment. Participatory Educational Research 13 4 251–270.

IEEE

[1]A. Kara and S. Yıldırım, “From black box to pedagogical partner: Students’ sense-making of LLM-based automated assessment”, PER, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 251–270, July 2026, doi: 10.17275/per.26.58.13.4.

ISNAD

Kara, Abdulkadir - Yıldırım, Serkan. “From Black Box to Pedagogical Partner: Students’ Sense-Making of LLM-Based Automated Assessment”. Participatory Educational Research 13/4 (July 1, 2026): 251-270. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.26.58.13.4.

JAMA

1.Kara A, Yıldırım S. From black box to pedagogical partner: Students’ sense-making of LLM-based automated assessment. PER. 2026;13:251–270.

MLA

Kara, Abdulkadir, and Serkan Yıldırım. “From Black Box to Pedagogical Partner: Students’ Sense-Making of LLM-Based Automated Assessment”. Participatory Educational Research, vol. 13, no. 4, July 2026, pp. 251-70, doi:10.17275/per.26.58.13.4.

Vancouver

1.Abdulkadir Kara, Serkan Yıldırım. From black box to pedagogical partner: Students’ sense-making of LLM-based automated assessment. PER. 2026 Jul. 1;13(4):251-70. doi:10.17275/per.26.58.13.4

27707

Creative Commons Atıf 4.0 International Lisance

download?token=eyJhdXRoX3JvbGVzIjpbXSwiZW5kcG9pbnQiOiJqb3VybmFsIiwib3JpZ2luYWxuYW1lIjoicGVyIHNjb3B1cyBpc3RhdHRpc3Rpay5wbmciLCJwYXRoIjoiOTg5Ni9mN2E1LzU3ZDcvNmEyMmIyZmFlMGJkYjYuMDUyNjIyMDMucG5nIiwiZXhwIjoxNzgwNjYyNTM5LCJub25jZSI6IjcxYzczMjhhOTdkOWYxM2ExZjE2NWExYjQyMzMyOWJhIn0.g4uvJoi6Oy8W0gRoUNW-d5FO9m4u30pEA0l1h8DwzSE

From black box to pedagogical partner: Students’ sense-making of LLM-based automated assessment

Abstract

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Project Number

Ethical Statement

Thanks

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite