This study examined how 21 K-12 teachers implemented AI-powered grading tools in their classrooms, finding that while teachers valued AI-generated narrative feedback for formative assessment, they emphasized the need for human oversight to maintain pedagogical coherence and student trust in automated grading.
This study investigates K–12 educators’ preferences for lesson plans created by humans versus AI models. Surveying math teachers across grade levels, the research compares components like warm-ups, main tasks, and cool-downs. While human-authored plans are generally favored—especially in elementary grades—AI-generated lessons perform well in structured tasks like cool-downs, particularly in high school. Teachers value the adaptability of AI but rely on human expertise for differentiation and student discourse. The findings support a collaborative approach where GenAI serves as a planning assistant, not a replacement.
