Faster preparation
The repeatable part of assessment is ready before the educator opens it, so their time goes to judgement rather than drafting.
Higher education
Built and deliveredAssessment and feedback automation
From repetitive assessment administration to educator-governed AI support, with academic judgement kept firmly with the educator.
Before
6 manual steps
Every submission read, rated, written up and recorded by hand.
After, with Aivomate
1 review and approval
The draft is prepared against the rubric; the educator decides.
We are collecting measured before-and-after figures for this workflow with the client. They will appear here once they come from their numbers rather than ours.
The situation
Edugrade AI began with a practical workflow problem in higher education. Educators need to review student work carefully, apply assessment criteria, provide useful feedback and record outcomes, but many of those steps are repetitive and time-intensive. Aivomate redesigned the workflow so AI handles the repeatable preparation while the educator remains responsible for academic judgement and final approval.
Assessment review
Against the rubric
Understanding of the topic Strong
Use of evidence Developing
Structure and clarity Strong
Draft feedback
Approve Edit
The workflow, before and after
Same process, same people, same systems. What changes is how much of it has to be carried by hand.
How it works today
Every step needs someone- 1 Student work received
- 2 Educator reviews every response
- 3 Checks rubric and criteria
- 4 Drafts feedback
- 5 Determines and records mark
- 6 Returns feedback
With Aivomate
People handle the exceptions- 1 Student work enters workflow
- 2 AI analyses against the rubric
- 3 Draft assessment and feedback prepared
- 4 Educator reviews and edits
- 5 Educator approves
- 6 Feedback released
What the organisation gets
More consistent feedback
Every piece of work is prepared against the same rubric in the same structure, which makes marking easier to moderate.
Manageable at scale
Larger cohorts stop being a proportional increase in administrative load.
What changes
AI handles the repeatable preparation, structures the draft feedback and supports consistency. The workflow becomes faster and far easier to manage at scale.
What stays human
The educator retains academic judgement. They review the AI output, make any changes required, and approve the final assessment and feedback before it reaches a student.
Nothing is released to a student without educator approval. The draft is a starting point, never a decision.
Written about elsewhere
Jisc, Advance HE and Queen Mary University of London have all published on Edugrade AI, under its earlier name EduMark AI.
Bring us your process.
In a free 30-minute discovery call we will look at how it works today, where the manual effort sits, what is worth automating, what is not, and where people should stay in the loop. No technical brief, no budget, no obligation.