Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in writing assessment, particularly for automated essay scoring (AES) and for generating formative feedback within automated writing evaluation (AWE). While AI-driven AES enhances efficiency and consistency, concerns regarding accuracy, bias, and ethical implications raise critical questions about its role in assessment. This paper examines the impact of generative AI on teacher agency through an ecological perspective, which considers agency as shaped by personal, institutional, and sociocultural factors. The analysis highlights the need for teachers to critically mediate AI-generated scores and feedback to align them with pedagogical goals, ensuring AI functions as an assistive tool rather than a determinant of assessment outcomes. Although AI can streamline assessment, over-reliance risks diminishing teachers’ evaluative expertise and reinforcing biases embedded in AI systems. Ethical concerns, including transparency, data privacy, and fairness, further complicate its adoption. To address these challenges, this paper proposes a framework for responsible AI integration that prioritizes bias mitigation, data security, and teacher-driven decision-making. The discussion concludes with pedagogical implications and directions for future research on AI-assisted writing assessment. • Teachers can actively mediate AI-generated scores to maintain agency. • Dependence on AES may weaken teachers’ evaluative skills. • Bias, data privacy, and AI opacity can undermine teachers’ decision-making. • AI literacy and hybrid assessment models can promote teacher autonomy. • A framework for protecting teacher agency in generative AI–based AWE is presented.

The integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into academic writing has raised questions about the syntactic complexity of AI-generated texts compared to human-authored essays. While studies have explored syntactic complexity in human writing, limited research has compared AI-generated argumentative and narrative texts, particularly in isolating cognitive overload and proficiency factors. This study addressed this gap by examining genre-specific syntactic patterns in AI-generated essays. Using the L2 Syntactic Complexity Analyzer, the study analyzed four hundred AI-generated essays (two hundred argumentative and two hundred narrative) and employed paired T-tests and Pearson correlation coefficients to identify differences and relationships among syntactic measures. Results showed that argumentative essays demonstrated higher syntactic complexity than narrative essays, especially in production unit length, coordination, and phrasal sophistication, while subordination measures remained similar. Correlation analysis revealed that argumentative essays compartmentalized ideas through coordinated and nominally complex structures, while narrative essays integrated descriptive richness through longer sentences and embedded clauses. The findings suggest that genre-specific rhetorical demands shape syntactic complexity in AI-generated writing. Implications for teaching and learning writing and future studies are discussed.