AUTOMATED ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM-SOLVING IN SECONDARY SCHOOL BASED ON THE INTEGRATION OF CHATGPT AND MRIIA+
PDF

Keywords

ChatGPT
MRIIA+
AI assessment
machine learning
school mathematics
OCR

How to Cite

[1]
V. Zalizko, “AUTOMATED ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM-SOLVING IN SECONDARY SCHOOL BASED ON THE INTEGRATION OF CHATGPT AND MRIIA+”, ITLT, vol. 112, no. 2, pp. 1–18, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.33407/itlt.v112i2.6536.

Abstract

This article presents an approach to automated assessment of school mathematics assessment based on the integration of ChatGPT with the Ukrainian digital educational application Mriia. The proposed approach addresses the growing need for transparent, reproducible, and scalable pedagogical diagnostic tools capable of evaluating not only formal learning outcomes, but also the procedural logic of mathematical reasoning, solution structures, and the development of students’ mathematical competencies. The approach is implemented and empirically evaluated using the MRIIA+ prototype, a digital educational platform that enables the automated collection, analysis, and interpretation of educational data within the Mriia application. The institutionalisation of this application has created new opportunities for integrating artificial intelligence tools into formal educational processes. Within the MRIIA+ environment, the integration of ChatGPT and Mriia components supports a systematic three-way information exchange between students, teachers, and parents, as well as the intellectual analysis of educational content. Empirical analysis indicates that the effects of AI-assisted assessment are selective. For the error correction indicator, the automated approach demonstrated statistically significant advantages (Mann-Whitney U, p_BH < 0.001, r ≈ 0.4), whereas for feedback readability and learning engagement, traditional assessment methods remained more effective (Cohen’s d ≈ 2.0). A key feature of the proposed approach is its ability to automatically detect recurring student errors and analyse the structure of mathematical solutions, including handwritten work, while providing personalised feedback in a way that reduces teachers’ time expenditure without compromising pedagogical quality. The MRIIA+ prototype proved to be effective in online and blended learning contexts. At the same time, the results indicate that automated assessment performs optimally within a defined homeostatic plateau, representing a balanced interaction between AI-based analysis and the teacher’s pedagogical interpretation. This balance enhances assessment objectivity, supports regular learning activities, increases student motivation, and assists teachers in evidence-based decision-making in secondary school mathematics education.

PDF

References

[1] Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Issues of functioning of the educational mobile application Mriia, Resolution No. 1334, Oct. 22, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.kmu.gov.ua/npas/pytannia-funktsionuvannia-osvitnoho-mobilnoho-dodatka-mriia-k1334. Accessed: Dec. 20, 2025. (in Ukrainian)

[2] V. Zalizko, “MRIIA+: An innovative learning platform for grades 0–12, powered by IIS-GPT,” Online educational platform, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://mriia.school-top.com. Accessed: Dec. 20, 2025. (in English)

[3] M. Pepin et al., “A scoping survey of ChatGPT in mathematics education,” Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-025-00172-1. (in English)

[4] H. S. Almarashdi et al., “Unveiling the potential: A systematic review of ChatGPT in transforming mathematics teaching and learning,” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 19, no. 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15739. (in English)

[5] Y. Wardat et al., “ChatGPT: A revolutionary tool for teaching and learning mathematics,” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 19, no. 4, 2023. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13272. (in English)

[6] M. Turmuzi et al., “ChatGPT in school mathematics education: A systematic review of opportunities, challenges, and pedagogical implications,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 170, Art. 105286, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.105286. (in English)

[7] L. Yan et al., “Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review,” British Journal of Educational Technology, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13370. (in English)

[8] B. Pepin, et al., “Mathematics education in the era of ChatGPT: Investigating its meaning and use for school and university education – Editorial to special issue,” Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, vol. 11, pp. 1–8, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-025-00173-0. (in English)

[9] H. Bastani et al., “Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422633122. (in English)

[10] A. Rasila et al., “On automatic assessment and conceptual understanding,” Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 149–159, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrv013. (in English)

[11] S. Baral et al., “Automated assessment in math education: A comparative analysis of LLMs for open-ended responses,” in Proc. EDM’24, 2024. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12729932. (in English)

[12] W. Morris et al., “Automated scoring of constructed response items in math assessment using large language models,” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-024-00418-w. (in English)

[13] S. Schorcht et al., “Prompt the problem: Investigating the mathematics educational quality of AI-supported problem solving by comparing prompt techniques,” Frontiers in Education, vol. 9, Art. 1386075, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1386075. (in English)

[14] S. Baral et al., “Auto-scoring student responses with images in mathematics,” in Proc. EDM’23, 2023. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8115645. (in English)

[15] S. Baral et al., “Automated feedback in math education: A comparative analysis of LLMs for open-ended responses,” arXiv:2411.08910, 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.08910. (in English)

[16] N. Reimers and I. Gurevych, “Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERT-networks,” in Proc. EMNLP, 2019. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1908.10084. (in English)

[17] M. Kocher and J. Savoy, “Distance measures in author profiling,” Information Processing & Management, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1103–1119, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2017.04.004. (in English)

[18] S. Poka and C. Herman, “Automatic assessment of mathematics,” in Proc. International Conference on Information Technology and Learning Tools, 2017, pp. 111–118. https://doi.org/10.12753/2066-026X-17-190. (in English)

[19] G. Kortemeyer et al., “Artificial-intelligence grading assistance for handwritten calculus exam,” arXiv:2510.05162, 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.05162. (in English)

Creative Commons License

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

Copyright (c) 2026 Vasyl Zalizko

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.