19 K-12 teachers participated in a co-design pilot study of an AI education platform, testing assessment grading. Teachers valued AI’s rapid narrative feedback for formative assessment but distrusted automated scoring, preferring human oversight. Students appreciated immediate feedback but remained skeptical of AI-only grading, highlighting needs for trustworthy, teacher-centered AI tools.

We propose a unified model combining the strength of extractive and abstractive summarization. On the one hand, a simple extractive model can obtain sentence-level attention with high ROUGE scores but less readable. On the other hand, a more complicated abstractive model can obtain word-level dynamic attention to generate a more readable paragraph. In our model, sentence-level attention is used to modulate the word-level attention such that words in less attended sentences are less likely to be generated. Moreover, a novel inconsistency loss function is introduced to penalize the inconsistency between two levels of attentions. By end-to-end training our model with the inconsistency loss and original losses of extractive and abstractive models, we achieve state-of-the-art ROUGE scores while being the most informative and readable summarization on the CNN/Daily Mail dataset in a solid human evaluation.