Several Australian universities now allow staff to use generative artificial intelligence to help mark student assignments and give feedback. Critics warn the practice could harm trust in higher education.
Western Sydney University senior lecturer Armin Alimardani studies law and technology. He says colleagues have asked him whether AI could ease the workload of grading, and he finds the idea "extremely concerning."
"I think there's always a risk, at the moment, for higher education to collapse," he said. He was speaking from Palermo, Italy, where he is attending university workshops on the technology.
Which Universities Allow AI Marking
Western Sydney University is one of several institutions that permit AI in assessment. The University of Newcastle, Deakin University, RMIT and the University of Adelaide have similar rules.
These permissions come with limits. Newcastle lets students opt out, while Deakin says staff can use AI to support assessment but not to "assign grades."
A Western Sydney University spokesperson said marks, grades and feedback "must also always be the responsibility of academic staff."
Other top universities have said no. The University of NSW, the University of Melbourne and the University of Sydney do not allow generative AI in marking, though they permit it in other classroom uses.
Monash, Wollongong and James Cook universities say AI is not currently used in marking but is part of wider teaching plans. The University of Queensland says it expects academics to assess student work and is developing policies to keep it that way.
Concerns Over Accuracy and Jobs
Critics fear a "slop-cycle," where students submit AI-written work that academics then mark with AI.
Alimardani says AI could act as a "second pair of eyes," and he is building tools to spot inconsistencies in human marking. He also notes many staff are overworked, with marking taking up much of their time.
However, he says the benefits are largely untested. He describes a risk he calls "verification drift," where busy staff stop checking AI results closely after a few look correct, letting errors slip through.
"Let's say 80 do exactly as advised, there are going to be 20 who do not," he said of a group of 100 academics given an AI tool.
He warns that students who feel they are not getting proper feedback may question the value of a degree.
At Queensland University of Technology, an August email to staff announced an "assessment uplift project" to make assessment "scalable and future-focused." One academic said staff reacted with "widespread concern."
The academic said sessional staff often rely on marking for income and fear their jobs could be cut. They also questioned the message it sends to tell students AI raises integrity issues while using it to mark them.
QUT writing student Alex Cameron said he "wouldn't pay $1000" for a degree marked by AI. "We like to get feedback from humans," he said.
QUT says the project is still in its early stage, with broad consultation underway across the university.
