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

Discussing How AI Should Support Assessment

英语说话情景

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

对话

How should AI support assessment without replacing academic judgement?

人工智能应该如何支持评估，而不是取代学术判断？

好答案:

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 应该通过处理有限且可审计的任务来支持评估，而不是直接做出最终的学术决定。它可以帮助检查反馈是否一致，识别大量作业中的模式，或者标出需要教师进一步审查的情况。不过，最终判断仍应由合格的教师来做，因为评估不只是识别模式。它还涉及对意图、原创性、学科标准，以及学生对某项任务的回应进行解读。比如，AI 可能会注意到两条关于证据的评论前后不一致，但是否真的有说服力，还是要由教师来判断学生的论证是否成立。因此，AI 更合适的角色是提供建议，并且保持透明。它可以增强人的判断，但不应取代对标准或结果的责任。

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

好答案:

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?

好答案:

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?

好答案:

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.