Can AI grade your essays? A comparative analysis of large language models and teacher ratings in multidimensional essay scoring

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.16337v1
• Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 12:33:14 GMT
• Title: Can AI grade your essays? A comparative analysis of large language models and teacher ratings in multidimensional essay scoring
• Authors: Kathrin Seßler, Maurice Fürstenberg, Babette Bühler, Enkelejda Kasneci,
• Abstract summary: Large language models offer potential solutions to facilitate essay-scoring tasks for teachers. Recent developments in generative AI, such as large language models, offer potential solutions to facilitate essay-scoring tasks for teachers. We evaluate the performance and reliability of both open-source and closed-source LLMs in assessing German student essays.
• Score: 8.71931996488953
• License:
• Abstract: The manual assessment and grading of student writing is a time-consuming yet critical task for teachers. Recent developments in generative AI, such as large language models, offer potential solutions to facilitate essay-scoring tasks for teachers. In our study, we evaluate the performance and reliability of both open-source and closed-source LLMs in assessing German student essays, comparing their evaluations to those of 37 teachers across 10 pre-defined criteria (i.e., plot logic, expression). A corpus of 20 real-world essays from Year 7 and 8 students was analyzed using five LLMs: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, o1, LLaMA 3-70B, and Mixtral 8x7B, aiming to provide in-depth insights into LLMs' scoring capabilities. Closed-source GPT models outperform open-source models in both internal consistency and alignment with human ratings, particularly excelling in language-related criteria. The novel o1 model outperforms all other LLMs, achieving Spearman's $r = .74$ with human assessments in the overall score, and an internal consistency of $ICC=.80$. These findings indicate that LLM-based assessment can be a useful tool to reduce teacher workload by supporting the evaluation of essays, especially with regard to language-related criteria. However, due to their tendency for higher scores, the models require further refinement to better capture aspects of content quality.

Related papers

• MM-Eval: A Multilingual Meta-Evaluation Benchmark for LLM-as-a-Judge and Reward Models [3.961168847961322]
  Large language models (LLMs) are commonly used as evaluators in tasks, where they act as proxies for human preferences or judgments. Existing benchmarks primarily focus on English, offering limited insight into LLMs' effectiveness as evaluators in non-English contexts. We introduce MM-Eval, a multilingual meta-evaluation benchmark that covers 18 languages across six categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-23T06:04:55Z)
• Are Large Language Models Good Essay Graders? [4.134395287621344]
  We evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) in assessing essay quality, focusing on their alignment with human grading. We compare the numeric grade provided by the LLMs to human rater-provided scores utilizing the ASAP dataset. ChatGPT tends to be harsher and further misaligned with human evaluations than Llama.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T23:20:49Z)
• Edu-Values: Towards Evaluating the Chinese Education Values of Large Language Models [9.761584874383873]
  We present Edu-Values, the first Chinese education values evaluation benchmark designed to measure large language models' alignment ability. We meticulously design and compile 1,418 questions, including multiple-choice, multi-modal question answering, subjective analysis, adversarial prompts, and questions on traditional Chinese culture. Due to differences in educational culture, Chinese LLMs significantly outperform English LLMs, with Qwen 2 ranking the first with a score of 81.37.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T13:02:54Z)
• 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)
• LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing [106.45895712717612]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks. This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T01:30:22Z)
• The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models [94.31327813151208]
  BiGGen Bench is a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks. A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T12:30:30Z)
• GPT-4 Surpassing Human Performance in Linguistic Pragmatics [0.0]
  This study investigates the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to comprehend and interpret linguistic pragmatics. Using Grice's communication principles, LLMs and human subjects were evaluated based on their responses to various dialogue-based tasks. The findings revealed the superior performance and speed of LLMs, particularly GPT4, over human subjects in interpreting pragmatics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-15T05:40:15Z)
• CITING: Large Language Models Create Curriculum for Instruction Tuning [35.66902011221179]
  We exploit the idea of leveraging AI models in lieu of humans as the teacher to train student LLMs. Our method is inspired by how human students refine their writing skills by following the rubrics and learning from the revisions offered by their tutors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-04T01:58:34Z)
• L-Eval: Instituting Standardized Evaluation for Long Context Language Models [91.05820785008527]
  We propose L-Eval to institute a more standardized evaluation for long context language models (LCLMs) We build a new evaluation suite containing 20 sub-tasks, 508 long documents, and over 2,000 human-labeled query-response pairs. Results show that popular n-gram matching metrics generally can not correlate well with human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T17:59:41Z)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization [79.37850439866938]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for automatic summarization but the reasons behind their successes are poorly understood. We find instruction tuning, and not model size, is the key to the LLM's zero-shot summarization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T18:46:19Z)

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.