IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0358694.html

Can artificial intelligence read our handwriting? A comparison of humans and artificial intelligence in the future of assessment

Author

Listed:
  • İsmail Yaşartürk
  • Halil İbrahim Öksüz
  • Ramazan Deniz
  • Mustafa Öztürk

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the legibility of fourth-grade elementary school students’ handwriting and to examine the differences and relationships between two evaluators: a human researcher and artificial intelligence (ChatGPT). To this end, the study was conducted using the descriptive survey model, one of the quantitative research approaches. The study sample consisted of 67 fourth-grade students attending a public elementary school. The students’ handwriting was evaluated using the Multidimensional Legibility Scale. Writing samples were collected from each student, including copying samples, dictated samples, and free writing samples. One class period was allocated for each writing task. The 201 handwriting samples obtained from the 67 students were evaluated by a researcher (the second author) and artificial intelligence (ChatGPT). According to the findings, no significant differences were detected between the artificial intelligence and the researcher in any writing type or subdimension, except for the slant subdimension of free writing. However, a high level of positive and significant correlation was identified between the two raters. Findings indicate that artificial intelligence can produce results comparable to those of expert raters when evaluating handwriting legibility. The fact that differences among raters are not statistically significant suggests that AI-based handwriting evaluations could serve as an objective and reliable alternative.

Suggested Citation

  • İsmail Yaşartürk & Halil İbrahim Öksüz & Ramazan Deniz & Mustafa Öztürk, 2026. "Can artificial intelligence read our handwriting? A comparison of humans and artificial intelligence in the future of assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(9), pages 1-14, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0358694
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0358694
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0358694
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0358694&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0358694?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0358694. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.