01
Item analysis
Item analysis and cohort reporting in the language of academic quality, not psychometric jargon
The accreditation panel will ask how you assess. Have the answer ready.
Assessment quality is no longer demonstrated by a syllabus. It's demonstrated by data — item analysis, cohort outcomes, marking consistency, an audit trail per decision. NUADU produces that documentation as a by-product of running your exams, not as a project three months before the visit.
Item analysisExponential functions — exam
6 of 28 studentsQ1EASY · 93%
Q2EASY · 87%
Q3HARD · 63%
Q4MEDIUM · 77%
KL10010010080AK10010080100JN100808060MW80804080TN100602060PZ801006080
Q3 · Exponential equations is the hardest itemStudents spent 40% of their time on it.
Class average78.4%
02
Audit trail
Every AI output, override and approval logged, exportable, reviewable
03
Certificates
Verifiable digital certificates with QR — employers and receiving institutions check in seconds
04
Integrations
Integrates with your LMS, SIS and SSO — no parallel record-keeping
05
EU AI Act-ready
EU AI Act-ready: human oversight, logging and documentation built into the workflow. GDPR and FERPA posture documented, DPA ready to sign
24+
Question types
AI-assisted
Marking with educator sign-off
9+
countries with users
Aligned
Your framework, your rubric
[ named reference ]
Universitas Kristen Krida Wacana (UKRIDA)
Tanjung Duren Utara, West Jakarta · Students: Relatively small community (undergraduate, graduate, professional programs) · Since: January 2020
Monthly English proficiency test as a requirement for final-year students before thesis defense
“NUADU provided a solution for students to take tests online during the pandemic, with a platform that was quite easy to learn.”
— Averina Purnomo, UKRIDA
[ the problem ]
The accreditation visit is in eight months and our assessment evidence is spreadsheets and paper.
A quiz tool that can't handle constructed response. A marking tool that doesn't talk to the LMS. A reporting system that produces dashboards but not evidence. Each one solves a slice. None of them respect the assessment workflow that an academic department actually runs — authoring, moderation, second marking, external examination, appeals.
Meanwhile, the institution's QA office is being asked to approve new AI tools that nobody can fully describe, and the DPO is being asked to sign off on biometric proctoring without a DPIA. The result is a stack of point tools that don't add up to a workflow — and growing institutional risk.
An assessment platform should fit the workflow, not the other way round. And it should make institutional review easier, not harder.
[ capabilities ]
Capabilities educators recognise.
🤖cap.01
Your materials, your standards.
Author manually, import from your bank, or use AI as a drafting assistant. Every item carries a named approver.
⚡cap.02
AI-assisted marking with educator sign-off
With AI assistance on, drafts are prepared for the marker, who reviews, overrides and signs off.
🎯cap.03
Framework alignment
Bloom's, CEFR, EQF, custom frameworks. Alignment is proposed by AI, confirmed by the educator.
📊cap.04
Programme analytics
Aggregated patterns for programme decisions. Individual signals framed for tutor outreach — never as labels.
🏆cap.05
Verifiable credentials
QR-verifiable, independently checkable. Employers and receiving institutions check in seconds.
cap.06
Study-path drafter
After a result, proposes a practice route addressing the rubric criteria where the learner scored lowest. Learner opts in. Drafted from approved content; not a profile — never as labels.
cap.07
Optional study companion
A learner-controlled, opt-in companion for practice. Bounded to the learner's recent work and approved content. The learner controls when it is on, sees the data it uses, and can switch it off. Never used as a label.
[ audiences ]
Who it serves.
Faculty and academic departments
AI as a drafting assistant for authoring and a documented second rater for marking. The educator decides. Turnaround time improves; the rubric and sign-off don't change.
2–3 weeks · First full exam deploymentLearners and candidates
Rubric-anchored feedback. The marker's name on the result. Documented appeals process. Optional, learner-controlled study companion — never pervasive profiling.
Rubric-anchored feedbackVice-Rector for Academic Affairs, Quality Assurance office, Innovation Centre / Rector's Plenipotentiary
One platform across the assessment lifecycle for faculties and the Quality Assurance office. Same rubric, same audit trail. Documentation ready for accreditation and academic governance.
1 platform, 1 audit trail[ use_cases ]
One platform across the assessment lifecycle.
From Monday's formative quiz to June's final examination.
case.01
Formative assessment
A short check-in during the lesson. Switch on AI assistance and it drafts candidate items from yesterday's reading for you to review, edit and approve. Marking happens as soon as the window closes. The educator sees the cohort pattern before the next class.
- Author from what you already teach
- Educator approves before assignment
- Class pattern available next session
case.02
Summative exams and finals
Multi-section, timed exams with mixed item types. Identity verification at exam start. Lockdown browser. AI-assisted marking with marker sign-off. Same rubric used for authoring, marking and feedback.
- Multi-section, timed exams
- Identity verification at exam start
- Marker sign-off on every grade
case.03
Language proficiency
Speaking, writing, listening, reading. Speaking responses transcribed and scored against the framework rubric. Markers review at audio level. CEFR-aligned per-criterion profile to the candidate.
- Speaking, writing, listening, reading
- Framework-aligned rubric
- Per-criterion profile to candidate
case.04
Competency-based programmes
Each item connected to a specific intended learning outcome. NUADU tracks evidence of attainment across rubric criteria over time. The academic team reviews and decides on progression — the system does not.
- ILO-linked items
- Evidence over time
- Progression decided by academics
[ differentiators ]
Why academic departments choose NUADU.
01
Fits the workflow
Authoring, moderation, marking, second marking, appeals — the workflow you already run. AI sits inside it; it doesn't replace it.
02
Rubric-anchored, end to end
The same rubric authors the item, marks the response, and structures the feedback. No translation losses, no separate systems.
03
LMS-friendly
Integrates with your LMS, SIS and SSO — no parallel record-keeping. Works with the systems your institution already runs.
04
Documentation-ready
Documentation pack covering methodology, retention, data flows and DPIA template. Designed to make institutional review easier.
[ faq ]
Questions, answered.
LMS quiz features handle a slice — the delivery and the basic marking. NUADU covers the lifecycle: authoring with optional AI drafting, framework alignment, layered integrity, AI-assisted marking with educator sign-off, rubric-anchored feedback, programme analytics, verifiable credentials. NUADU integrates with your LMS rather than replacing it.
Deployment depends on integration with your LMS, SSO and learner records: simple exam conversion up to 8 hours, a single module live in max 2 days, full first deployment in 2–3 weeks.
24+ types including multiple choice, constructed response, drag-and-drop, hotspot, ordering, matching, code, spoken response, and simulations.
Major frameworks (CEFR, EQF, Bloom's) are supported, and custom institutional frameworks can be added. AI proposes alignment; the educator confirms.
Yes. A documentation pack covering methodology, retention and data flows is available to QA, DPO, and academic-board reviewers on request.
Have the answer ready for accreditation.
A 30-minute conversation about your assessment evidence and quality workflow.