Abstract

The rapid saturation of research on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the classroom reflects concerns with the even more rapidly developing AI in many aspects of society. Framing the parameters of AI literacy can serve as an important context within which educators can guide students toward critical engagement with AI tools in order to develop their self-directed learning. Before this can happen, however, an aspect to consider in order to harness the potential of AI tools includes the necessity of aligning grading practices with self-directed learning. This article explores how such an alignment may foster a learning environment that shifts the use of AI away from merely generating substitutive text and toward actually harnessing its potential as a tool for helping authentic learning to happen. Drawing on relevant research and two survey responses from secondary students, this article aims to establish a context in which reflective classroom surveys can help teachers implement process-based grading structures to empower students in their growth as authentic learners instead of defaulting to passive users of AI. In such a context, the secondary classroom would remove the barriers created by hierarchical grading practices, evolve with emergent technology, train students to interact meaningfully and ethically with it, and ultimately prepare them for the ongoing challenges of using AI in the humanities and society, overall.

Keywords

Grading PracticesSelf-Directed LearningSurveysSecondary ClassroomsAI in Education

References

  1. [1] Culatta, R., 2025. Profile of an AI-Ready Graduate. Available from: https://www.ascd.org/blogs/profile-of-an-ai-ready-graduate (cited 10 May 2026).
  2. [2] Knowles, M., 1975. Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers. Association Press: New York, NY, USA.
  3. [3] Bowen, J.A., Watson, C.E., 2026. Teaching with AI: A Practical Guide to a New Era of Human Learning, 2nd ed. Johns Hopkins University: Baltimore, MD, USA.
  4. [4] Hoskin, K., 1979. The examination, disciplinary power and rational schooling. History of Education. 8(2), 135–146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760790080205
  5. [5] Horvath, J.C., 2026. The Digital Delusion: How Classroom Technology Harms Our Kids’ Learning—and How to Help Them Thrive Again. LME Global: Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
  6. [6] Guskey, T.R., Brookhart, S.M. (Eds.), 2019. What We Know About Grading: What Works, What Doesn’t, and What’s Next. ASCD: Alexandria, VA, USA.
  7. [7] Bonner, S., Chen, P., 2019. The composition of grades: Cognitive and noncognitive factors. In: Guskey, T., Brookhart, S. (Eds.). What We Know About Grading: What Works, What Doesn’t, and What’s Next. ASCD: Alexandria, VA, USA.
  8. [8] Ellsworth, R.A., Willson, D.D., 1977. Another visit to the world of grading. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas. 51(4), 188–189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.1977.9957038
  9. [9] Guskey, T., 1994. Making the grade: What benefits students? Educational Leadership. 52, 14–20.
  10. [10] O’Hagan, L., 1997. It’s Broken—Fix It! In: Tchudi, S. (Ed.). Alternatives to Grading Student Writing. National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE): Urbana, IL, USA.
  11. [11] Zerwin, S.M., 2020. Point-Less: An English Teacher’s Guide to More Meaningful Grading. Heinemann Publishing: Portsmouth, NH, USA.
  12. [12] Kohn, A., 2018. Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes, 25th Anniversary Edition. HarperOne: San Francisco, CA, USA.
  13. [13] Inoue, A.B., 2015. Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies: Teaching and Assessing Writing for a Socially Just Future. WAC Clearinghouse: Fort Collins, CO, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2015.0698
  14. [14] Wilson, M., 2018. Reimagining Writing Assessment: From Scales to Stories. Heinemann Publishing: Portsmouth, NH, USA.
  15. [15] Pope, D.C., 2001. “Doing School”: How We Are Creating a Generation of Stressed Out, Materialistic, and Miseducated Students. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA.
  16. [16] Kamanga, E., de Beer, J., Lubbe, A., 2001. The role of teachers’ assessment beliefs in fostering self-directed learning skills within the school learning context and its implications for higher education. In: Mentz, E., Lubbe, A. (Eds.). Learning through Assessment: An Approach towards Self-Directed Learning. AOSIS: Cape Town, South Africa. pp. 217–250.
  17. [17] Carillo, E., 2021. The Hidden Inequities in Labor-Based Grading Contracts. Utah State University Press: Logan, UT, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7330/9781646422678
  18. [18] Tchudi, S. (Ed.), 1997. Alternatives to Grading Student Writing. NCTE: Urbana, IL, USA.
  19. [19] Danielewicz, J., Elbow, P., 2009. A unilateral grading contract to improve learning and teaching. College Composition and Communication. 61(2), 244–268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc20099471
  20. [20] Potts, G., 2010. A simple alternative to grading. Inquiry: The Journal of the Virginia Community Colleges. 15(1), 4. Available from: https://commons.vccs.edu/inquiry/vol15/iss1/4
  21. [21] Litterio, L.M., 2018. Contract grading in the technical writing classroom: Blending community-based assessment and self-assessment. Assessing Writing. 38, 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.06.002
  22. [22] Schinske, J., Tanner, K., 2014. Teaching more by grading less (or differently). CBE—Life Sciences Education. 13(2), 159–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.cbe-14-03-0054
  23. [23] Inoue, A.B., 2022. Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Classroom, 2nd ed. WAC Clearinghouse: Fort Collins, CO, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2022.1824
  24. [24] Czarnecki, S., 2023. General Interest: Labor-Based Grading: A New Ethic for Writing Feedback. English Journal. 112(6), 56–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58680/ej202332488
  25. [25] O’Meara, K.D., 2024. “In Absolute Control of My Own Grading Destiny”: Student Reflections on Engagement-Based Grading Contracts. Pedagogy. 24(3), 373–388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-11246303
  26. [26] Freire, P., 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Ramos, M.B. (Trans.). Penguin Books: London, UK.
  27. [27] Tan, C., 2018. Whither teacher-directed learning? Freirean and Confucian thoughts. The Educational Forum. 82(4), 461–474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2018.1475713
  28. [28] McTighe, J., Willis, J., 2019. Upgrade Your Teaching: Understanding by Design Meets Neuroscience. ASCD: Alexandria, VA, USA.
  29. [29] Ehrenworth, M., Seyfried, P., 2025. AI-Enhanced Literacy: Practical Steps for Deepening Reading and Writing Instruction. ASCD: Alexandria, VA, USA.
  30. [30] Garner, J., 2026. How AI Makes Differentiation Possible. Available from: https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/how-ai-makes-differentiation-possible (cited 10 May 2026).
  31. [31] Cogan-Drew, D., 2026. Why Teacher Expertise Is Your Best AI Filter. Available from: https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/sponsored-content-why-teacher-expertise-is-your-best-ai-filter (cited 10 May 2026).
  32. [32] Pande, K., Jadhav, V., Mali, M., 2023. Artificial intelligence: Exploring the attitude of secondary students. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society. 19(3), 43–48. Available from: https://www.je-lks.org/ojs/index.php/Je-LKS_EN/article/view/1135865
  33. [33] Glaveanu, S.M., Maier, R., 2025. An analysis of students’ attitudes toward artificial intelligence—ChatGPT, in particular—in relation to personality traits, coping strategies, and personal values. Behavioral Sciences. 15(9), 1179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15091179
  34. [34] Sok, S., Heng, K., Pum, M., 2025. Investigating high school students’ attitudes toward the use of AI in education: Evidence from Cambodia. SAGE Open. 15(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251353575
  35. [35] Sultana, A., Abdul Latheef, N., Siby, N., et al., 2025. Exploring students’ attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence (AI): Psychometric validation of AI-attitude scale. SAGE Open. 15(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251378375
  36. [36] Derer, Ö.K., Derer, N.B., 2026. Exploring middle school students’ perceptions, attitudes, and opinions toward artificial intelligence. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. 14(3), 697–716. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.5738
  37. [37] de Vries, A., 2023. The growing energy footprint of artificial intelligence. Joule. 7(10), 2191–2194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2023.09.004
  38. [38] Tomlinson, B., Black, R.W., Patterson, D., et al., 2024. The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating are lower for AI than for humans. Scientific Reports. 14, 3732. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54271-x
  39. [39] You, J., 2025. How Much Energy Does ChatGPT Use? Available from: https://epoch.ai/gradient-updates/how-much-energy-does-chatgpt-use (cited 10 May 2026).

How to Cite

Erik N. Powell. Using Classroom Surveys to Align Grading Practices and Self-Directed Learning in the Age of AI. Journal of Education and Learning Environments. 12 August 2026. https://doi.org/10.55121/jele.v2i2.101339
Citation formats

Copyright & License

Copyright © 2026 Erik N. Powell. Published by Japan Bilingual Publishing Co..

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Article Metrics

525Abstract views
275Downloads