AI Enters Written Assessments

The claim centers on schools applying AI to essay-type and essay-style (서·논술형) assessments, the format in which students write extended answers rather than select multiple-choice responses. The research summary reviewed included materials published via the Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education's AI platform (hiai.goe.go.kr), reflecting the office's active promotion of AI in classroom settings.

The core observation — that teachers say their workload has grown — is consistent with the sources reviewed. When AI produces drafts of feedback or scores for open-ended answers, teachers are still required to check accuracy, handle cases the model gets wrong, and remain accountable for final grades. That review layer is the source of the added labor teachers describe.

Benefits Acknowledged, but Costs Remain

The reviewed materials do not present AI in written assessment as purely negative. Potential advantages such as faster first-pass feedback and support for large volumes of student writing are part of the discussion. The teachers' accounts do not deny these benefits; they argue that the net effect so far has been additional work during the transition, as existing grading routines are replaced rather than eliminated.

Uncertainty remains on scope. The claim reflects the experiences of teachers participating in AI-assisted assessment programs and the reviewed materials; it does not establish a nationwide or statistically measured increase in teacher workload, and no such figure appears in the sources reviewed.

Schools introducing AI into essay-style grading are finding that automation shifts the burden — from marking to supervising — and for many teachers that has meant more work, not less. The claim is Mostly True.