Ensuring Fairness in AI-Assisted EFL Writing Assessment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/p137vr68Keywords:
AI-based Essay Scoring, EFL Writing Assessment, Algorithmic Fairness, Assessment Transparency, Student ParticipationAbstract
This study critically examines the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in EFL (English as a foreign) writing assessment, focusing on three key dimensions: algorithmic bias, system transparency, and student voice. Despite the potential for AI to revolutionize assessment through scalability and consistency, its rapid adoption has outpaced ethical considerations. This research underscores the importance of transparent systems to build trust and ensure fairness, as well as the necessity of incorporating student voice to enhance educational equity. Through a comprehensive literature review and case studies, this paper proposes strategies to mitigate bias, enhance transparency, and empower student participation. These strategies include diversifying training data, conducting regular fairness audits, and establishing transparent feedback channels. The findings suggest that truly effective AI assessment systems must balance technological efficiency with pedagogical considerations to support diverse EFL learners equitably.
Downloads
References
[1] Barshay, J. Proof points: Asian American students lose more points in an AI essay grading study—but researchers don’t know why. The Hechinger Report. 2024.
[2] Binns, R. Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency. 2018, p. 149-159.
[3] Chaudhry, M. A., Cukurova, M., & Luckin, R. (2021). A transparency index framework for AI in education. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2022. p. 195-198.
[4] Fielding, M. (2004). Transformative approaches to student voice: Theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. British Educational Research Journal. 2004, Vol. 30(No. 2), p. 291–311.
[5] Karran, A. J., Charland, P., Martineau, J.-T., Ortiz de Guinea Lopez de Arana, A., Lesage, A. M., Senecal, S., & Leger, P.-M. (2023). Multi-stakeholder perspective on responsible artificial intelligence and acceptability in education. npj Science of Learning. 2025, Vol. 10(No. 1), p. 44.
[6] Lundy, L. ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal. 2007, Vol. 33(No. 6), p. 927–942.
[7] Ranalli, J., Link, S., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. Automated Writing Evaluation for Formative Assessment of Second Language Writing: Investigating the Accuracy and Usefulness of Feedback as Part of Argument-Based Validation. Educational Psychology, 2017, Vol. 37(No. 1), p. 8-25.
[8] Rudduck, J., & McIntyre, D. (2007). Improving Learning through Consulting Pupils. Routledge. 2007.
[9] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 2023. Information on: https://tech.ed.gov.
[10] Wambsganss, T. Hidden bias in AI writing tools: What educators need to know. SocietyByte. 2023.
[11] Yang, H., Gao, C., & Shen, H. Learner interaction with, and response to, AI-programmed automated writing evaluation feedback in EFL writing: An exploratory study. Education and Information Technologies. 2024. Vol 29(No. 6), p. 3837–3858.
[12] Yamashita, T. Exploring potential biases in GPT-4o’s ratings of English language learners’ essays. Language Testing. 2025, Vol 42(No. 3), p. 1–15.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Education and Educational Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
