AI-assisted grading starts with a teacher decision
AI can propose comments or rubric interpretations, but a fluent explanation is not evidence that a mark is correct. Before using a service for student work, decide what assistance the school permits, which data may be sent and who checks the output. Do not treat a platform's marketing language as permission to share student records.
Separate three different workflows
Teacher-led assessment creation uses AI to propose questions, examples and marking guidance. Feedback drafting uses student work to propose comments and requires separate approval for that data processing. Automatic scoring assigns marks and needs task-specific validation, safeguards and an appeal route. These are different activities. A connector for creating assessments does not establish that feedback drafting or automatic scoring is available in the assessment platform.
Build the rubric before you evaluate the tool
Define the learning objective and a small set of observable criteria. Describe what a response must demonstrate, what evidence supports each level and how partial credit works. Keep private answer guidance separate from criteria students need to see.
Use teacher-marked examples to test any proposed AI output. Include incomplete responses, unconventional correct methods, multilingual writing and cases where polished wording conceals weak reasoning. Compare the suggested feedback with the actual evidence, not with how confident the service sounds.
Check feedback before students receive it
Read each proposed comment against the rubric and student response. Correct factual errors, assumptions about ability, invented evidence and vague revision advice. A useful comment identifies an observed strength or gap and a practical next step. The teacher remains responsible for the mark and feedback.
Explain any approved AI assistance clearly. Students should know which decisions remain with the teacher and how to question an inaccurate result. A detector score or unusual task event should never silently become a deduction from the student's mark.
Evaluate the workload honestly
Include setup, checking, corrections and handling questions in your time comparison. Test one suitable assignment before expanding. If checking unreliable suggestions takes longer than direct teacher review, change the workflow instead of forcing adoption.
Protect student information
Use only school-approved services and the minimum information needed. Check provider arrangements, retention, transfers and access, taking account of the school's actual jurisdiction and students. Removing a name alone does not necessarily anonymise an identifiable submission. Seek the school's privacy or safeguarding guidance when uncertain.
Using Classroom Writer for this workflow
Use an approved external AI service only for the work your school permits, and compare its suggestions with your rubric. CW can support assessment creation and teacher review, but is not an automatic AI essay grader.
CW supports teacher-designed, cross-subject assessments: short and extended answers, multiple-choice questions, editable tables, graphs, diagrams, drawing, annotation and image labelling. Teachers choose permitted resources, editable areas, timing and clipboard conditions.
Subject tools include the GeoGebra Calculator Suite, Transformation Grid, Maths & Science Canvas, equations and calculators, Music Studio, bounded simulations and selectable simulation libraries. Prepare the tools needed for the task; some specialist tools require teacher setup after an AI-assisted import. Teachers request GeoGebra access, which eligible requests receive automatically; student use is free.
The reusable rubric library supports preparation and teacher review. Portfolio Hub supports longer projects and evidence over time; live Google draft review and related checkpoint features are restricted pilot capabilities, not universal entitlements. The multilingual interface and Training Mode support practice; changing the interface language does not translate authored assessments.
Classroom Writer supports teacher-led assessment creation and import with compatible AI platforms, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Mistral, Microsoft Copilot Studio and Perplexity. The teacher reviews and approves the proposed materials before delivery. These connections do not mean that a student-facing chatbot is embedded in every assessment, that AI-provider subscriptions are included, or that CW records conversations in external AI services.
Classroom Writer lets teachers set permitted resources and tools, control editable areas and clipboard permissions, and review relevant activity recorded in the assessment workspace. CW is not a plagiarism-matching engine or a definitive AI-authorship detector. Rapid-input and other integrity signals prompt teacher review; they are not proof of AI use or misconduct. These records do not establish what happened in another app, browser tab or device, and do not provide a complete external AI conversation or keystroke history.
Classroom Writer's published offer is a 30-day free trial, rather than a permanent free plan. The current individual teacher prices are $4.99/month or $49/year; school plans start at $39.90/month or $390/year for 10 teacher seats. Check the current plans before purchasing. Third-party AI subscriptions are separate.