Interrogating the Potential of Using AI Essay Grader in Open and Distance Learning

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the pedagogical framework of Open and Distance Learning (ODL) represents a transformative shift in how educational institutions manage assessment at scale. ODL environments are characterized by geographical separation between instructors and learners, often involving massive cohorts that make timely, personalized feedback a significant logistical challenge. Automated Essay Scoring (AES) systems, or AI essay graders, utilize Natural Language Processing (NLP) and machine learning algorithms to evaluate student writing, offering the promise of immediate feedback and reduced administrative burden. However, the "interrogation" of this potential requires a balanced examination of technical efficacy, pedagogical validity, and ethical implications, such as algorithmic bias and the reduction of complex human expression to quantifiable data points. This study specifically, investigates the efficacy, challenges, and transformative potential of implementing Automated Essay Scoring (AES) systems within Open and Distance Learning (ODL) frameworks. As ODL institutions face increasing enrolment and the subsequent demand for scalable assessment solutions, Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers a mechanism for providing instantaneous, standardized feedback. However, the transition from human-centric grading to algorithmic evaluation necessitates a rigorous interrogation of pedagogical integrity. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, the study evaluates the correlation between AI-generated marks and human rater scores across diverse disciplinary contexts. Key areas of inquiry include the ability of AI to detect nuanced argumentative structures, the potential for "algorithmic bias" against non-native English speakers, and the impact of immediate feedback on student retention and motivation in asynchronous environments. Preliminary findings suggest that while AI graders significantly enhance administrative efficiency and provide valuable formative support, they struggle with high-level semantic coherence and creative synthesis. The study concludes by proposing a "Human-in-the-Loop" (HITL) model, suggesting that AI should serve as a scaffold for human expertise rather than a total replacement, ensuring that the "distance" in ODL does not result in a de-personalized educational experience.

Automated Essay Scoring (AES), Open and Distance Learning (ODL)

1. AlAfnan, M. A. (2023). ChatGPT as an educational tool: Opportunities, challenges, and recommendations. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Anderson, T. (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Anson, C. M. (2023). AI-based text generation and the social construction of fraudulent authorship. Composition Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., & Boud, D. (2020). Re-imagining assessment in a digital world. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim Code. Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Daniel, J. S. (1996). Mega-universities and knowledge media: Technology strategies for higher education. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Eaton, S. E. (2021). Plagiarism in higher education: Tackling academic integrity management. Libraries Unlimited. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Gerlich, M. (2023). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2009). Speech and language processing. Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Liang, W., et al. (2023). GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns, 4(7). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Luckin, R. (2018). Machine learning and human intelligence: The future of education for the 21st century. UCL Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Marcus, G., & Davis, E. (2019). Rebooting AI: Building artificial intelligence we can trust. Pantheon. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. McNamara, D. S. (2011). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58–63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Moore, M. G., & Diehl, W. C. (2018). Handbook of distance education. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Nelson, A. S., Santamaría, P. V., Javens, J. S., & Ricaurte, M. (2025). Students’ perceptions of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) use in academic writing in English as a foreign language. Education Sciences, 15(5), 611. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Page, E. B. (1966). The imminence of grading essays by computer. Phi Delta Kappan, 47(5), 238–243. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Peters, M. A. (2011). The virtues of openness: Education, science, and intellectual property in the digital age. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Peters, O. (1998). Learning and teaching in distance education. Kogan Page. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (2013). Handbook of automated essay evaluation. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing knowledge. Lulu Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Weller, M. (2020). 25 years of ed tech. Athabasca University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• What the Desert Fathers Teach Data Scientists: Ancient Ascetic Principles for Ethical Machine-Learning Practice
• Comparative Analysis of Some Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Ransomware
• Comparative Performance Analysis of Some Priority Queue Variants in Dijkstra’s Algorithm
• Transfer Learning in Detecting E-Assessment Malpractice from a Proctored Video Recordings.
• Dual-Modal Detection of Parkinson’s Disease: A Clinical Framework and Deep Learning Approach Using NeuroParkNet