Facilitating Holistic Evaluations with LLMs: Insights from Scenario-Based Experiments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.17728v2
• Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:54:28 GMT
• Title: Facilitating Holistic Evaluations with LLMs: Insights from Scenario-Based Experiments
• Authors: Toru Ishida, Tongxi Liu, Hailong Wang, William K. Cheunga,
• Abstract summary: Even experienced faculty teams find it challenging to realize a holistic evaluation that accommodates diverse perspectives. This paper explores the use of a Large Language Model (LLM) as a facilitator to integrate diverse faculty assessments.
• Score: 0.22499166814992438
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Workshop courses designed to foster creativity are gaining popularity. However, even experienced faculty teams find it challenging to realize a holistic evaluation that accommodates diverse perspectives. Adequate deliberation is essential to integrate varied assessments, but faculty often lack the time for such exchanges. Deriving an average score without discussion undermines the purpose of a holistic evaluation. Therefore, this paper explores the use of a Large Language Model (LLM) as a facilitator to integrate diverse faculty assessments. Scenario-based experiments were conducted to determine if the LLM could integrate diverse evaluations and explain the underlying pedagogical theories to faculty. The results were noteworthy, showing that the LLM can effectively facilitate faculty discussions. Additionally, the LLM demonstrated the capability to create evaluation criteria by generalizing a single scenario-based experiment, leveraging its already acquired pedagogical domain knowledge.

Related papers

• Large Language Model as an Assignment Evaluator: Insights, Feedback, and Challenges in a 1000+ Student Course [49.296957552006226]
  Using large language models (LLMs) for automatic evaluation has become an important evaluation method in NLP research. This report shares how we use GPT-4 as an automatic assignment evaluator in a university course with 1,028 students.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-07T00:17:24Z)
• Supporting Self-Reflection at Scale with Large Language Models: Insights from Randomized Field Experiments in Classrooms [7.550701021850185]
  We investigate the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) to help students engage in post-lesson reflection. We conducted two randomized field experiments in undergraduate computer science courses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-01T02:41:59Z)
• Large Language Models as Partners in Student Essay Evaluation [5.479797073162603]
  This paper presents an evaluation conducted with Large Language Models (LLMs) using actual student essays in three scenarios. Quantitative analysis of the results revealed a strong correlation between LLM and faculty member assessments in the pairwise comparison scenario with pre-specified rubrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T22:28:50Z)
• Decompose and Aggregate: A Step-by-Step Interpretable Evaluation Framework [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators. The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question. We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• Evaluating and Optimizing Educational Content with Large Language Model Judgments [52.33701672559594]
  We use Language Models (LMs) as educational experts to assess the impact of various instructions on learning outcomes. We introduce an instruction optimization approach in which one LM generates instructional materials using the judgments of another LM as a reward function. Human teachers' evaluations of these LM-generated worksheets show a significant alignment between the LM judgments and human teacher preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T09:09:15Z)
• PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluator [14.585292530642603]
  Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs. We propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T12:33:14Z)
• Collaborative Evaluation: Exploring the Synergy of Large Language Models and Humans for Open-ended Generation Evaluation [71.76872586182981]
  Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a scalable and cost-effective alternative to human evaluations. We propose a Collaborative Evaluation pipeline CoEval, involving the design of a checklist of task-specific criteria and the detailed evaluation of texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• Through the Lens of Core Competency: Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models [27.271533306818732]
  Large language model (LLM) has excellent performance and wide practical uses. Existing evaluation tasks are difficult to keep up with the wide range of applications in real-world scenarios. We summarize 4 core competencies of LLM, including reasoning, knowledge, reliability, and safety. Under this competency architecture, similar tasks are combined to reflect corresponding ability, while new tasks can also be easily added into the system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-15T17:40:34Z)
• A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models [87.60417393701331]
  Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing popularity in both academia and industry. This paper focuses on three key dimensions: what to evaluate, where to evaluate, and how to evaluate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T16:28:35Z)
• Can ChatGPT Assess Human Personalities? A General Evaluation Framework [70.90142717649785]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have produced impressive results in various areas, but their potential human-like psychology is still largely unexplored. This paper presents a generic evaluation framework for LLMs to assess human personalities based on Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-01T06:16:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.