Abstract
The rise of AI in educational assessments has significantly enhanced efficiency and accuracy. However, it also introduces critical ethical challenges, including bias in grading, data privacy risks, and accountability gaps. These issues can undermine trust in AI-driven assessments and compromise educational fairness, making a structured ethical framework essential. To address these challenges, this study empirically validates an existing triadic ethical framework for AI-assisted educational assessments, originally proposed by Lim, Gottipati and Cheong (In: Keengwe (ed) Creative AI tools and ethical implications in teaching and learning, IGI Global, 2023), grounded in student perceptions. The framework encompasses three ethical domains—physical, cognitive, and informational—which intersect with five key assessment pipeline stages: system design, data stewardship, assessment construction, administration, and grading. By structuring AI-driven assessments within this ethical framework, the study systematically maps key concerns, including fairness, accountability, privacy, and academic integrity. To validate the proposed framework, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to examine its relevance and alignment with learners' ethical concerns. Specifically, the study aims to (1) evaluate how well the triadic framework aligns with learners' perceptions of ethical issues using SEM analysis, and (2) examine relationships among the assessment pipeline stages, ethical considerations, pedagogical outcomes, and learner experiences. Findings reveal robust connections between AI-assisted assessment stages, ethical concerns, and learners' perspectives. By bridging theoretical validation with practical insights, this study emphasizes actionable strategies to support the development of AI-driven assessment systems that balance technological efficiency, pedagogical effectiveness, and ethical responsibility.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Gottipati, Swapna 2 ; Cheong, Michelle 2 1 Singapore University of Social Sciences, Singapore, Singapore (GRID:grid.443365.3) (ISNI:0000 0004 0388 6484)
2 Singapore Management University, School of Computing and Information Systems, Singapore, Singapore (GRID:grid.412634.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 0697 8112)




