\n
\n<\/p>\n
Marking technical workings on mathematics and physics paper scripts can be laborious.<\/p>\n
In recent times, lecturers at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) have turned to an artificial intelligence tool called Gradescope.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The tool scans the handwritten answers, and groups similar ones together, so the human examiner can assign the same grade to every student with similar workings. Batch assigning helps the human save time as he does not need to pore over every single script.<\/p>\n
NTU and SUTD are among the four public universities here that have allowed the use of AI tools to grade students\u2019 work that contributes to their final scores. The other two are the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT).<\/p>\n
Singapore Management University (SMU) and the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) do not allow the use of AI to grade students\u2019 work that counts towards their year-end results, citing accuracy and reliability as key concerns.<\/p>\n
Broader discussions around AI\u2019s role in higher education surfaced\u00a0in 2025\u00a0when\u00a0NTU penalised three students\u00a0for their use of AI in assignments. While all six universities here generally\u00a0allow students to use generative AI to varying degrees, they have to declare when and how they use such tools for academic integrity.\u00a0<\/p>\n
While many discussions have centred on AI\u00a0hampering students\u2019 learning and critical thinking, little has been said about unfair or inaccurate grading by AI.<\/p>\n
NTU, SUTD, NUS and SIT told The Straits Times that all AI-generated grades must be reviewed by teachers.\u00a0Students must also be informed when AI is used for assessment that counts towards the year\u2019s final grade. Students may also request a review of their results.<\/p>\n
NTU started letting lecturers use AI to grade midterm and final exams in selected physics and maths modules in August 2024.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThis approach improves consistency and efficiency in grading while ensuring that all grading decisions remain with the instructor,\u201d said NTU\u2019s deputy president and provost Christian Wolfrum.<\/p>\n
SUTD started using Gradescope in April 2025 in its computer science and design\u00a0school to assess tests comprising a mixture of short-answer questions and explanation questions.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cIn this instance, AI acts as a supporting partner to the instructor,\u201d said SUTD\u2019s associate provost of education and innovation Ashraf Kassim.\u00a0<\/p>\n
At SIT, an internally developed platform called AI-Orate created a chatbot to quiz food technology degree undergraduates on their understanding of food manufacturing processes and grade them based on their answers.\u00a0Chatbots like this one can mimic a human examiner by asking follow-up questions to drill down on concepts.\u00a0<\/p>\n
About 50 students took part in one of the few runs of AI-Orate in October 2025, during which they wrote code to program an industrial machine to carry out heat processing to predict microbial reaction rates at different temperatures. They were then quizzed by the chatbot on their reasoning, with follow-up questions to drill down on their responses. The chatbot then generated a transcript of the conversation along with a recommended grade.<\/p>\n
Associate Professor Wong Shin Yee, programme leader for SIT\u2019s Bachelor of Food Technology with Honours programme, said that the chatbot can cut down time-consuming face-to-face assessments from one week to about two days.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is a lot of potential, especially for creating highly customisable assessments in large classes where personalised questioning is usually impossible,\u201d said Prof Wong, adding that chatbots can be applied to group submissions to evaluate how well each student understands their group project.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Associate Professor Karin Avnit, deputy director at SIT\u2019s Teaching and Learning Academy, said: \u201cThe adaptive nature of the discussion allows students to demonstrate their competence.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
NUS permits AI use only if the tool has been validated for accuracy and\u00a0approved by the relevant head of department or deanery, under a university forum that sets AI application standards.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Only one tool used for two post-admission English tests meets\u00a0this stringent requirement. The tests are for students lacking the necessary English qualifications.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The tool, which has been in use since July 2025,\u00a0assesses\u00a0argumentative essays on content, organisation and language. It has been trained to emulate the standards of an expert panel of human NUS graders.<\/p>\n
To ensure reliability, AI performs the grading twice, and human graders are also roped in to audit the AI\u2019s results and examine borderline cases.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have observed that this hybrid approach significantly enhances grading consistency, compared with solely relying on human graders who can be susceptible to fatigue,\u201d said NUS\u2019 associate provost for education and technology Melvin Yap.\u00a0<\/p>\n
SMU and SUSS are the only universities that have yet to approve AI in grading scripts that count towards a student\u2019s final result.\u00a0<\/p>\n
SUSS said it prefers to rely on humans for consistency for now.<\/p>\n
\u201cUntil there is a more robust understanding of the accuracy and reliability of AI in different grading contexts, human academic judgment must remain central in high-stakes assessments,\u201d said SMU\u2019s vice-provost in charge of education Venky Shankararaman.<\/p>\n
The university started a working group to evaluate the effectiveness and limitations of AI-enabled grading tools in mid-2025.\u00a0<\/p>\n
An SUSS spokesman said the varsity prefers to use humans to enforce established marking rubrics. \u201cThis ensures that grading remains consistent, transparent and aligned with academic standards.\u201d<\/p>\n
NUS undergraduate Leslie De Souza, 23, who majors in English literature, said he does not trust an automated tool to understand the nuances of his work. \u201cHow would AI tell me what to improve on?\u201d<\/p>\n
NTU undergraduate Ryanna Lee, 22, who majors in communications studies, hopes for more checks and balances.\u00a0\u201cIt\u2019s only fair that AI use by teachers is watched and controlled,\u201d she said.\u00a0<\/p>\n
However, NUS undergraduate Kwan Kaiee, 22, who is taking a double degree in history and English literature, said the use of AI is inevitable.\u00a0\u201cUniversity lecturers and professors in Singapore are overworked due to their dual commitments of research and teaching.\u201d<\/p>\n
SIT undergraduate Lief Chng, 26, who took part in the October chatbot examiner trial, said he and his classmates were initially sceptical about how well the chatbot would be able to capture the nuances of their replies and assess them. After the test, Mr Chng was more open to the idea of a chatbot examiner.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn a normal test, you either get it right or wrong. But in the chatbot, it feels like you have a second chance to earn marks because the chatbot can prompt us further if our first answer is not complete or good enough,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Source: The Straits Times<\/p>\n
Note: <\/i><\/b>This article was written by Lee Li Ying and first appeared in The Straits Times on 15 March 2026.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n