Use case scenarios / Discussion case 02 of 06
Discussion case 02
The agent that drafts the grades
An instructor teaching 300 students builds an agent that reads each submission, drafts feedback and proposes a grade. Teaching assistants approve each one with a single click. Turnaround drops from two weeks to two days, and students say the feedback is more detailed than before.
A hypothetical composite for discussion, not an account of a real institution.
The tension
One viewThis is responsible useA human approves every grade, feedback is faster and richer, and TAs can spend their time on the students who need them most.
Another viewThe human review is nominalA one-click approval across 300 submissions isn’t meaningful oversight. Grades are consequential decisions, and students weren’t asked or told.
Questions for discussion
- 01What would make a TA’s approval real review rather than a rubber stamp?
- 02Should students be told an AI drafted their feedback and grade? Before or after?
- 03How would a student appeal, and to whom?
- 04Does it matter whether any of the 300 students are in the EU?
- 05Would your answer change if the agent only drafted feedback and never proposed a grade?
What the framework suggests- Grades shape decisions about people, which is a legal trigger in several regimes.
- Review, approval and monitoring sit at T4 or above even if documentation stays light.
- Disclosure belongs in the Accountability question.
Where reasonable people disagree- What counts as a human in the loop
- Whether efficiency gains justify the change without student consent
- Where feedback ends and evaluation begins