AI scoring vs human scoring for language tests: What's the difference?

Charlotte Guest
A girl sat at a desk with a laptop and notepad studying and taking notes
Reading time: 6 minutes

When entering the world of language proficiency tests, test takers are often faced with a dilemma: Should they opt for tests scored by humans or those assessed by artificial intelligence (AI)? The choice might seem trivial at first, but understanding the differences between AI scoring and human language test scoring can significantly impact preparation strategy and, ultimately, determine test outcomes.

The human touch in language proficiency testing and scoring

Historically, language tests have been scored by human assessors. This method leverages the nuanced understanding that humans have of language, including idiomatic expressions, cultural references, and the subtleties of tone and even writing style, akin to the capabilities of the human brain. Human scorers can appreciate the creative and original use of language, potentially rewarding test takers for flair and originality in their answers. Scorers are particularly effective at evaluating progress or achievement tests, which are designed to assess a student's language knowledge and progress after completing a particular chapter, unit, or at the end of a course, reflecting how well the language tester is performing in their language learning studies.

One significant difference between human and AI scoring is how they handle context. Human scorers can understand the significance and implications of a particular word or phrase in a given context, while AI algorithms rely on predetermined rules and datasets.

The adaptability and learning capabilities of human brains contribute significantly to the effectiveness of scoring in language tests, mirroring how these brains adjust and learn from new information.

Advantages:

  • Nuanced understanding: Human scorers are adept at interpreting the complexities and nuances of language that AI might miss.
  • Contextual flexibility: Humans can consider context beyond the written or spoken word, understanding cultural and situational implications.

Disadvantages:

  • Subjectivity and inconsistency: Despite rigorous training, human-based scoring can introduce a level of subjectivity and variability, potentially affecting the fairness and reliability of scores.
  • Time and resource intensive: Human-based scoring is labor-intensive and time-consuming, often resulting in longer waiting times for results.
  • Human bias: Assessors, despite being highly trained and experienced, bring their own perspectives, preferences and preconceptions into the grading process. This can lead to variability in scoring, where two equally competent test takers might receive different scores based on the scorer's subjective judgment.

The rise of AI in language test scoring

With advancements in technology, AI-based scoring systems have started to play a significant role in language assessment. These systems utilize algorithms and natural language processing (NLP) techniques to evaluate test responses. AI scoring promises objectivity and efficiency, offering a standardized way to assess language and proficiency level.

Advantages:

  • Consistency: AI scoring systems provide a consistent scoring method, applying the same criteria across all test takers, thereby reducing the potential for bias.
  • Speed: AI can process and score tests much faster than human scorers can, leading to quicker results turnaround.
  • Great for more nervous testers: Not everyone likes having to take a test in front of a person, so AI removes that extra stress.

Disadvantages:

  • Lack of nuance recognition: AI may not fully understand subtle nuances, creativity, or complex structures in language the way a human scorer can.
  • Dependence on data: The effectiveness of AI scoring is heavily reliant on the data it has been trained on, which can limit its ability to interpret less common responses accurately.

Making the choice

When deciding between tests scored by humans or AI, consider the following factors:

  • Your strengths: If you have a creative flair and excel at expressing original thoughts, human-scored tests might appreciate your unique approach more. Conversely, if you excel in structured language use and clear, concise expression, AI-scored tests could work to your advantage.
  • Your goals: Consider why you're taking the test. Some organizations might prefer one scoring method over the other, so it's worth investigating their preferences.
  • Preparation time: If you're on a tight schedule, the quicker turnaround time of AI-scored tests might be beneficial.

Ultimately, both scoring methods aim to measure and assess language proficiency accurately. The key is understanding how each approach aligns with your personal strengths and goals.

The bias factor in language testing

An often-discussed concern in both AI and human language test scoring is the issue of bias. With AI scoring, biases can be ingrained in the algorithms due to the data they are trained on, but if the system is well designed, bias can be removed and provide fairer scoring.

Conversely speaking, human scorers, despite their best efforts to remain objective, bring their own subconscious biases to the evaluation process. These biases might be related to a test taker's accent, dialect, or even the content of their responses, which could subtly influence the scorer's perceptions and judgments. Efforts are continually made to mitigate these biases in both approaches to ensure a fair and equitable assessment for all test takers.

Preparing for success in foreign language proficiency tests

Regardless of the scoring method, thorough preparation remains, of course, crucial. Familiarize yourself with the test format, practice under timed conditions, and seek feedback on your performance, whether from teachers, peers, or through self-assessment tools.

The distinctions between AI scoring and human in language tests continue to blur, with many exams now incorporating a mix of both to have students leverage their respective strengths. Understanding and interpreting written language is essential in preparing for language proficiency tests, especially for reading tests. By understanding these differences, test takers can better prepare for their exams, setting themselves up for the best possible outcome.

Will AI replace human-marked tests?

The question of whether AI will replace markers in language tests is complex and multifaceted. On one hand, the efficiency, consistency and scalability of AI scoring systems present a compelling case for their increased utilization. These systems can process vast numbers of tests in a fraction of the time it takes markers, providing quick feedback that is invaluable in educational settings. On the other hand, the nuanced understanding, contextual knowledge, flexibility, and ability to appreciate the subtleties of language that human markers bring to the table are qualities that AI has yet to fully replicate.

Both AI and human-based scoring aim to accurately assess language proficiency levels, such as those defined by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages or the Global Scale of English, where a level like C2 or 85-90 indicates that a student can understand virtually everything, master the foreign language perfectly, and potentially have superior knowledge compared to a native speaker.

The integration of AI in language testing is less about replacement and more about complementing and enhancing the existing processes. AI can handle the objective, clear-cut aspects of language testing, freeing markers to focus on the more subjective, nuanced responses that require a human touch. This hybrid approach could lead to a more robust, efficient and fair assessment system, leveraging the strengths of both humans and AI.

Future developments in AI technology and machine learning may narrow the gap between AI and human grading capabilities. However, the ethical considerations, such as ensuring fairness and addressing bias, along with the desire to maintain a human element in education, suggest that a balanced approach will persist. In conclusion, while AI will increasingly play a significant role in language testing, it is unlikely to completely replace markers. Instead, the future lies in finding the optimal synergy between technological advancements and human judgment to enhance the fairness, accuracy and efficiency of language proficiency assessments.

Tests to let your language skills shine through

Explore ɫèAV's innovative language testing solutions today and discover how we are blending the best of AI technology and our own expertise to offer you reliable, fair and efficient language proficiency assessments. We are committed to offering reliable and credible proficiency tests, ensuring that our certifications are recognized for job applications, university admissions, citizenship applications, and by employers worldwide. Whether you're gearing up for academic, professional, or personal success, our tests are designed to meet your diverse needs and help unlock your full potential.

Take the next step in your language learning journey with ɫèAV and experience the difference that a meticulously crafted test can make.

Explore our wide range of English language tests

More blogs from ɫèAV

  • A teacher sat at a table with students helping them work

    GSE Teacher Toolkit: Teaching mixed ability classes

    By Sara Davila
    Reading time: 4 minutes

    One of the biggest challenges for language teachers is teaching a mixed ability class. Students with different levels and abilities will always be present in our classrooms. So, how can we use the to improve mixed ability teaching? Let’s find out.

    How to teach mixed-ability classes

    Differentiated instruction is the best way to address the challenges of mixed ability classrooms. This is a method that helps teachers adjust aspects of the curriculum to match the different levels ofstudents.*This practice ensures that all learners are meeting course outcomes, even though their learning experience may be varied anddifferent.

    In order to differentiate instruction and support students with different needs, teachers can change:

    • the content being taught
    • the process used to teach
    • the product students create
    • the environment where learning takes place

    Adjusting the content tends to be the most obvious way to support learners. So, teachers who want to engage with differentiated instruction in mixed ability classrooms often find themselves producing a lot of content. This is greatas a way tosupport learners. However, creating new content or leveling existing content is time-consuming, and it can become a real challenge for teachers.

    Content vs process

    Instead of adjusting your content, you can use the GSE Teacher Toolkit to adjust your process. When you’re not creating lots of new content, you’ve got more time to consider how to teach new language to your students and how they can show what they’ve learned.The GSE Teacher Toolkit helps teachers to focus on the process and language production of learners, rather than the content you are teaching.

    This means less work for you, and more engagement from your students, no matter what their level is. And the GSE Teacher Toolkit can help you understand the skills we can expect students to demonstrate. So how does this work in practice? Let’stake a look.

  • A woman with a backpack stood in a airport looking at one of the many boards

    Travelling to an English-speaking country? 6 simple things you need to know

    By Steffanie Zazulak
    Reading time: 2 minutes

    Regardless of where you’re travelling, it‘s definitely worth learning some basic English, and you won’t be alone: (20% of the world). Of course, if you’re visiting an English-speaking country like the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, it’s especially useful to brush up on your English.

    Here are six simple things you need to know when travelling to English-speaking countries:

  • A teacher sat with students reading

    5 STEAM myths debunked

    By Sarah Hillyard
    Reading time: 4 minutes

    STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Maths) sounds like an overwhelming combination of subjects to teach – and only suitable for expert educators. But the reality is doing STEAM is simpler than you think. Here are 5 common STEAM myths and the truth behind them. We also outline a number of simple activities you try with your students.

    1. STEAM requires a lot of time

    STEAM projects encourage curiosity, creativity and collaboration in the classroom – but they have a reputation for being preparation-heavy and for requiring a lot of teaching time and energy.

    But to get the full benefit of STEAM, there’s no need to plan out a full-blown project that lasts a whole month. In fact, you might integrate just one STEAM lesson into your syllabus. Or a lesson could contain a one-off 10-minute STEAM challenge.

    Here are some easy, low-preparation challenges your classes can take part in:

    10-minute STEAM challenges:

    • Winter unit: How tall can you build a snowman using paper cups?
    • Shapes theme: Using five toothpicks make a pentagon, two triangles, a letter of the alphabet.
    • Bug project: Can you create a symmetrical butterfly?

    2. You need fancy materials to do STEAM

    The biggest misconception is around technology. When you think of STEAM, you might imagine you need apps, computers, tablets and robots to teach it successfully. It’s true that you will certainly find STEAM challenges out there that involve extensive supply lists, expensive equipment, knowledge of programming and robotics.

    However, in reality, you probably have everything you need already. Technology doesn’t have to be expensive or complicated. It can refer to simple, non-electronic tools and machines, too. Think funnels, measuring cups and screwdrivers, for example. You can use low-cost regular classroom or household items and recyclable materials that learners' families can donate. Toilet paper rolls and cardboard boxes are very popular items in STEAM.

    Here is a low-tech activity you can try:

    Combine engineering, art and math using cardboard and a pair of scissors

    This challenge involves creating 3D self-portrait sculptures in the using only cardboard. First, teach about parts of the face by observing and analyzing some Cubist portraits (eg, explore Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso). Then have learners cut out cardboard shapes and make slits in them to attach together. They create their self-portrait sculptures by fitting the pieces together using the slits so that the final product will stand by itself. Display the self-portraits and talk about them.

    3. STEAM is targeted to older learners

    Young children are naturally curious about the world around them, and STEAM experiences begin very early in life. They explore with their senses and test their hypotheses about the world, just like scientists do. Much of their play is based on engineering skills, such as building houses with LEGO® bricks. They learn to manipulate tools while they develop their fine motor skills and their awareness of non-electronic technology. They use dramatic play and enjoy getting their hands full of paint while engaged in art. They learn about maths concepts very early on, such as size (big and small toys), quantities of things, and even babies start using the word “more” if they’re still hungry.

    Check out this simple STEAM experiment to learn about plants and their needs.

    How do plants eat and drink?

    Have students put water and food dye in a pot. Put a white flower in the water. Ask students to guess what will happen.

    After a few days, students should check their flowers and observe how it has changed color. They must then record their results. Extend the experiment by asking if they can make their flowers two colors.