Enhancing graduate students’ evaluative skills through AI-supported collaborative marking

Developing reliable evaluative judgment is a central and cognitively demanding task in graduate education, as assessing research writing requires integrating multiple quality criteria while regulating subjective bias. Effective evaluation relies on learners' ability to internalize standards, monitor judgment accuracy, and calibrate decisions against expert benchmarks. Although prior AI-assisted assessment research has predominantly focused on optimizing predictive accuracy and scoring agreement with human raters, comparatively less attention has been paid to how AI-supported marking may function as a psychologically mediated process shaping learners' evaluative judgment. Grounded in evaluative judgment theory and informed by self-regulated learning perspectives, this study conceptualizes AI-supported collaborative marking as a metacognitive scaffold that externalizes expert criteria, facilitates discrepancy detection, and supports reflective calibration. Using a mixed-method approach, 121 graduate research papers were assessed under four conditions: student-only marking, AI-only marking, retrieval-augmented AI marking, and AI-supported collaborative marking. Papers were evaluated across four dimensions including rigor, originality, significance, and academic conventions, with outcomes benchmarked against expert judgments. Results showed that AI-supported collaborative marking reduced deviations from expert ratings and improved inter-rater consistency compared with student-only and AI-only conditions, with MAE decreasing from 3.260 to 1.221. Behavioral sequence analyses revealed systematic differences in evaluative behaviors. Senior graduate students exhibited more developed metacognitive monitoring, reflective reasoning, and structured cycles of planning, monitoring, and reflection. In contrast, junior students relied more on exploratory and trial-and-error strategies, highlighting developmental differences in self-regulated evaluative competence. Overall, the findings indicate that AI-supported collaborative marking enhances assessment accuracy, and is associated with observable changes in students' evaluative interaction patterns and reflective behaviors, which may contribute to the development of academic assessment literacy in graduate education.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2026-03-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1739222
Primary Topic
Student Assessment and Feedback
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Enhancing graduate students’ evaluative skills through AI-supported collaborative marking

Tiong‐Thye Goh, Di Wu, Huan Yin, Dexin Chen
Frontiers in Psychology
Student Assessment and Feedback
article

Enhancing graduate students’ evaluative skills through AI-supported collaborative marking

Tiong‐Thye Goh, Di Wu, Huan Yin, Dexin Chen
article en

Abstract

Developing reliable evaluative judgment is a central and cognitively demanding task in graduate education, as assessing research writing requires integrating multiple quality criteria while regulating subjective bias. Effective evaluation relies on learners' ability to internalize standards, monitor judgment accuracy, and calibrate decisions against expert benchmarks. Although prior AI-assisted assessment research has predominantly focused on optimizing predictive accuracy and scoring agreement with human raters, comparatively less attention has been paid to how AI-supported marking may function as a psychologically mediated process shaping learners' evaluative judgment. Grounded in evaluative judgment theory and informed by self-regulated learning perspectives, this study conceptualizes AI-supported collaborative marking as a metacognitive scaffold that externalizes expert criteria, facilitates discrepancy detection, and supports reflective calibration. Using a mixed-method approach, 121 graduate research papers were assessed under four conditions: student-only marking, AI-only marking, retrieval-augmented AI marking, and AI-supported collaborative marking. Papers were evaluated across four dimensions including rigor, originality, significance, and academic conventions, with outcomes benchmarked against expert judgments. Results showed that AI-supported collaborative marking reduced deviations from expert ratings and improved inter-rater consistency compared with student-only and AI-only conditions, with MAE decreasing from 3.260 to 1.221. Behavioral sequence analyses revealed systematic differences in evaluative behaviors. Senior graduate students exhibited more developed metacognitive monitoring, reflective reasoning, and structured cycles of planning, monitoring, and reflection. In contrast, junior students relied more on exploratory and trial-and-error strategies, highlighting developmental differences in self-regulated evaluative competence. Overall, the findings indicate that AI-supported collaborative marking enhances assessment accuracy, and is associated with observable changes in students' evaluative interaction patterns and reflective behaviors, which may contribute to the development of academic assessment literacy in graduate education.

Frontiers in PsychologyVol. 17
Victoria University of Wellington (NZ), Hubei University (CN)
Youth Foundation, Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China, Humanities and Social Sciences Youth Foundation, Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 25%
Student Assessment and Feedback
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.