Six expert teachers completed grading tasks in ASYST with 100% effectiveness, median 2:15 minutes, and an average SUS score of 88.8¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · designr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · checked against its sources 2026-10-27 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? In a small usability study, all six teacher testers completed the grading task successfully and rated ASYST well above average for GUI usability. → Ulrike Padó 2024
Evidence¶
Ulrike Padó 2024¶
Ulrike Padó, Yunus Eryilmaz, Larissa Kirschner. (2024). Short-Answer Grading for German: Addressing the Challenges. Int J Artif Intell Educ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00383-w
q2 · i? · design · r2
Small usability study with six teachers experienced in short-answer grading (four German-as-second-language, two computer science) using ASYST on sample student answers; "100% effectiveness of the tool", median completion time 2:15 min, and an average SUS score of 88.8 (minimum 67.5, maximum 100), above the GUI mean of 76 reported via Bangor et al.
"All testers were able to complete the task successfully, leading to 100% effectiveness of the tool. The median time taken on the task (from setting the input language to completed saving of the results, and counting the run time of the tool) was 2:15 min."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Experimental-group participants rated TibetCPR highly usable (SUS = 84.3, an Excellent rating), with the highest items on voluntary engagement and independent use — related
- Human scoring and feedback for HDR takes about 11 minutes 30 seconds per learner, while GPT-based scoring and feedback is nearly instant — related
- LearnLens reduces teacher feedback time, with half of teachers previously spending 10–30 minutes per assignment versus a median below 5 minutes with the system — related
- Older adults rated the KOKU digital programme with excellent usability and high acceptability — related
- The Bloom classification UI shows low perceived workload and high usability in a 50-participant user study — related
- Adults rated the LLM-powered iCub storytelling system as usable, with a total SUS score of 76.70 indicating good product usability — related
- Students rated AISSA's usability as excellent, with an average SUS score of 83.38 from 30 of 46 pilot students — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
asyst-usability-study-high-sus |
title |
Six expert teachers completed grading tasks in ASYST with 100% effectiveness, median 2:15 minutes, and an average SUS score of 88.8 |
description |
Six expert teachers completed grading tasks in ASYST with 100% effectiveness, median 2:15 minutes, and an average SUS score of 88.8 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
source_checked |
2026-10-27 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-27 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — ulrike-padó-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.