戻る TOEFL Speaking C2 (6.0) English (US) – Take an Interview

Discussing How AI Should Support Assessment

英語スピーキングシナリオ

Ollie

A friendly British English speaker with a clear, encouraging manner.

36 years · male

Practise talking about "Discussing How AI Should Support Assessment" with Ollie, your AI speaking avatar. Speak out loud, get instant feedback, and build confidence for your TOEFL iBT C2 speaking exam.

Start free AI practice

会話

How should AI support assessment without replacing academic judgement?

AIは、学術的な判断を置き換えずに、どのように評価を支えるべきでしょうか？

良い答えです:

AI should support assessment by handling limited, auditable tasks rather than making final academic decisions. It might help check whether feedback is consistent, identify patterns across a large set of scripts or flag cases that need closer human review. However, the final judgment should remain with qualified teachers, because assessment is not just pattern recognition. It involves interpreting intention, originality, disciplinary standards and the student's response to a particular task. For example, AI might notice that two comments about evidence are inconsistent, but a teacher has to decide whether the student's argument is actually persuasive. The useful role for AI is therefore advisory and transparent. It can strengthen human judgment, but it should not replace responsibility for standards or outcomes.

AIは、最終的な学術的判断を下すのではなく、限定された監査可能な作業を担うことで評価を支えるべきです。たとえば、フィードバックに一貫性があるかを確認したり、大量の答案全体に見られる傾向を見つけたり、より詳しい人間の確認が必要なケースに印を付けたりするのには役立つかもしれません。ただし、最終判断は資格のある教師に残すべきです。評価は単なるパターン認識ではないからです。そこには、意図、独創性、学科としての基準、そして学生が特定の課題にどう応えたかを読み取ることが含まれます。たとえば、AIは証拠に関する2つのコメントに食い違いがあることに気づくかもしれませんが、その学生の主張が実際に説得力を持つかどうかを判断するのは教師です。したがって、AIにとって有用な役割は、助言的で透明性のあるものです。人間の判断を強化することはできますが、基準や結果に対する責任まで置き換えるべきではありません。

What is the main risk if AI becomes part of grading or feedback?

良い答えです:

The central risk is that students may receive feedback that sounds authoritative but lacks real understanding. AI can produce polished comments, but polish is not the same as insight. For example, a student might be told to "develop the argument further" even when the real problem is that they misunderstood the evidence or answered a slightly different question. Because the comment sounds professional, the student may accept it without receiving useful guidance. This is especially dangerous in high-stakes assessment, where feedback affects confidence and future choices. I would not say human feedback is always excellent, but weak human feedback can at least be questioned through a responsible person. AI feedback risks sounding final while being shallow, generic or misaligned with the task.

How would you answer the argument that AI makes assessment more efficient and consistent?

良い答えです:

Efficiency and consistency are real advantages, especially in large courses where teachers are under pressure and students wait too long for feedback. AI may help identify uneven marking, summarize common problems or reduce repetitive administrative work. I would not dismiss those gains. However, consistency is not enough if the system consistently misses nuance. For example, an AI tool might apply the same surface-level comment to many essays, while failing to notice that each student's problem is different. That is efficient, but not educationally rich. The question should be whether AI saves time in ways that improve human feedback, not whether it simply reduces labor. If efficiency weakens interpretation, the university has gained speed at the expense of judgment and learning.

What should universities avoid doing as AI assessment tools become more powerful?

良い答えです:

Universities should avoid treating AI assessment as innovation by default. A powerful tool can still weaken education if it reduces feedback to prediction, classification or risk management. For example, a system that quickly labels students as at risk may help staff prioritize support, but it may also narrow how teachers see those students. Similarly, automated feedback may look modern while making assessment less personal and less intellectually demanding. The long-term danger is that universities start designing assessment around what tools can measure, rather than around what students need to learn. AI should be adopted only when it strengthens educational purposes that the institution has already defined. Novelty is not a sufficient reason to change how students are judged or supported.