An AI assistant forchemistry teaching

A research project of the AG Chemiedidaktik at the Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg: Chemie.KI evaluates student answers based on the assessment rubric that you set and release – criterion by criterion, with partial credit instead of a blanket grade.

Join now Learn about the project
  • scientifically sound
  • for teachers
  • Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg

New: Chemie.KI has been extensively revised and expanded. The assessment now stands on a better foundation, you can now create your own tasks – and registration is temporarily open to all chemistry teachers.

The principle

How does Chemie.KI work?

For each chemistry task we store a fixed assessment rubric with individual criteria – for example: Was the technical term used correctly? Was the justification logically derived? A language model then checks the student answer criterion by criterion and awards partial credit instead of a blanket grade.

To make the AI judge like an experienced chemistry teacher, we additionally train it with thousands of real student answers rated by experts. This way the model also learns to handle incomplete or linguistically imperfect answers – and in initial evaluations achieves assessment quality close to that of human raters.

Guided demo The science behind Chemie.KI
How it works

From task to feedback

Four steps, from creating your own task to evaluating the entire class group.

  1. 1

    Set task and criteria

    You write the task and each assessment requirement on its own line with a point value. The total score follows automatically.

    teacher
  2. 2

    Release assessment rubric

    Chemie.KI generates a sample solution, partial credit rules and borderline cases from this. You read, correct and release them. Nothing is graded without release.

    teacher
  3. 3

    Edit test by code

    You bundle released tasks into a test. Your class group opens it with a five-digit code – no account, no name.

    Class group
  4. 4

    Feedback and analysis

    Each response receives partial credit, a justification per criterion and the supporting evidence passage. You see the class at a glance – including marked borderline cases.

    Both
View the four steps as a guided demo
The feedback

Each point has an evidence passage

It is not the answer as a whole that is graded, but each criterion separately. Each awarded partial credit is accompanied by the passage in the response text on which it is based – color‑highlighted and traceable for learners and for you.

What a criterion does not cover remains visibly open: highlighted with dots, with a note about what would have been required for full credit. Only what the task actually requires is graded.

Try it yourself

Select a task, write an answer and have it assessed. The result will appear in the card next to it.

Explain why a sodium hydroxide solution reacts as basic. Also state how the pH value changes compared with pure water.

Acid–base · AFB II · 3 points

Explain why a sodium hydroxide solution reacts as basic. Also state how the pH value changes compared with pure water.

Sodium hydroxide dissociates in water into Na+ and OH−K1. As a result the concentration of hydroxide ions increasesK2 above that of hydronium ions, therefore the pH value of the solution changesK3.

The colored highlight marks the passage on which the assessment of a criterion is based. Hover over a criterion below to emphasize its evidence passage.

  • K1

    The dissociation of the solid in water is correctly named with both ions.

    Dissociation described

    1/1
  • K2

    The excess of hydroxide ions compared with hydronium ions is given as the cause.

    Justified ion ratio

    1/1
  • K3

    It is mentioned that the pH value changes – but not in which direction compared with pure water.

    pH value given · Note: The pH value is above 7, the value of pure water

    0/1

Score achieved2 out of 3

Reliability

Control remains with you

A KI that grades performances must remain verifiable. Four provisions ensure this.

  • Nothing runs without release

    A task is only graded after you have read and released the assessment rubric.

  • Your criteria remain your criteria

    Number, order and point values are checked at every model call. Deviations lead to an abort – not to a silent correction.

  • Every grading is recalculated

    Partial credits may not exceed the maxima; the sum must be correct. The system checks both itself.

  • Borderline cases are returned to you

    Uncertain cases are marked for review instead of being passed. Manually graded responses can be stored as a benchmark.

Tasks

Two ways to a graded task

You can use the reviewed pool or create your own tasks – both end up in the same test.

Ready prepared

Tasks from the pool

For 13 subject areas there are 65 reviewed tasks with ready assessment rubrics – supported by thousands of student responses graded by experts.

  • Select a task and add it directly to a test
  • View the assessment rubric and copy it for your own tasks
  • Ready to use without preparation
View demo
Self-created

Own tasks

Enter your own task description, set criteria, generate an assessment guide, review and release – for a topic from the existing collection or for your own topic.

  • You determine criteria and point values
  • Fine adjustments for operator, AFB and strictness possible
  • Own assessed answers can be stored as calibration
Create account
17.693 annotated cases

Student answers assessed by experts – the basis for every assessment.

κ = 0,87 Agreement with the gold standard

Human teachers achieve 0.90. See the study

a few seconds until feedback

Feedback is generated during the task, not days later.

without names Participation via code

Learners take tests via a five-digit code – without an account and without personal data.