Chatbots im Schulunterricht: Wir testen das Fobizz-Tool zur automatischen Bewertung von Hausaufgaben

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06651v5
• Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 20:54:00 GMT
• Title: Chatbots im Schulunterricht: Wir testen das Fobizz-Tool zur automatischen Bewertung von Hausaufgaben
• Authors: Rainer Muehlhoff, Marte Henningsen,
• Abstract summary: This study examines the AI-powered grading tool "AI Grading Assistant" by the German company Fobizz. The tool's numerical grades and qualitative feedback are often random and do not improve even when its suggestions are incorporated. The study critiques the broader trend of adopting AI as a quick fix for systemic problems in education.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: This study examines the AI-powered grading tool "AI Grading Assistant" by the German company Fobizz, designed to support teachers in evaluating and providing feedback on student assignments. Against the societal backdrop of an overburdened education system and rising expectations for artificial intelligence as a solution to these challenges, the investigation evaluates the tool's functional suitability through two test series. The results reveal significant shortcomings: The tool's numerical grades and qualitative feedback are often random and do not improve even when its suggestions are incorporated. The highest ratings are achievable only with texts generated by ChatGPT. False claims and nonsensical submissions frequently go undetected, while the implementation of some grading criteria is unreliable and opaque. Since these deficiencies stem from the inherent limitations of large language models (LLMs), fundamental improvements to this or similar tools are not immediately foreseeable. The study critiques the broader trend of adopting AI as a quick fix for systemic problems in education, concluding that Fobizz's marketing of the tool as an objective and time-saving solution is misleading and irresponsible. Finally, the study calls for systematic evaluation and subject-specific pedagogical scrutiny of the use of AI tools in educational contexts.

Related papers

• Interactive Agents to Overcome Ambiguity in Software Engineering [61.40183840499932]
  AI agents are increasingly being deployed to automate tasks, often based on ambiguous and underspecified user instructions. Making unwarranted assumptions and failing to ask clarifying questions can lead to suboptimal outcomes. We study the ability of LLM agents to handle ambiguous instructions in interactive code generation settings by evaluating proprietary and open-weight models on their performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T17:12:26Z)
• AI-Compass: A Comprehensive and Effective Multi-module Testing Tool for AI Systems [26.605694684145313]
  In this study, we design and implement a testing tool, tool, to comprehensively and effectively evaluate AI systems. The tool extensively assesses adversarial robustness, model interpretability, and performs neuron analysis. Our research sheds light on a general solution for AI systems testing landscape.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-09T11:15:17Z)
• Could ChatGPT get an Engineering Degree? Evaluating Higher Education Vulnerability to AI Assistants [176.39275404745098]
  We evaluate whether two AI assistants, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, can adequately answer assessment questions. GPT-4 answers an average of 65.8% of questions correctly, and can even produce the correct answer across at least one prompting strategy for 85.1% of questions. Our results call for revising program-level assessment design in higher education in light of advances in generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T12:11:49Z)
• Hidding the Ghostwriters: An Adversarial Evaluation of AI-Generated Student Essay Detection [29.433764586753956]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable capabilities in text generation tasks. The utilization of these models carries inherent risks, including but not limited to plagiarism, the dissemination of fake news, and issues in educational exercises. This paper aims to bridge this gap by constructing AIG-ASAP, an AI-generated student essay dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-01T08:11:56Z)
• Student Mastery or AI Deception? Analyzing ChatGPT's Assessment Proficiency and Evaluating Detection Strategies [1.633179643849375]
  Generative AI systems such as ChatGPT have a disruptive effect on learning and assessment. This work investigates the performance of ChatGPT by evaluating it across three courses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-27T20:10:13Z)
• Automated Distractor and Feedback Generation for Math Multiple-choice Questions via In-context Learning [43.83422798569986]
  Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are ubiquitous in almost all levels of education since they are easy to administer, grade, and reliable form of assessment. To date, the task of crafting high-quality distractors has largely remained a labor-intensive process for teachers and learning content designers. We propose a simple, in-context learning-based solution for automated distractor and corresponding feedback message generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T01:03:04Z)
• Automated Grading and Feedback Tools for Programming Education: A Systematic Review [7.776434991976473]
  Most papers assess the correctness of assignments in object-oriented languages. Few tools assess the maintainability, readability or documentation of the source code. Most tools offered fully automated assessment to allow for near-instantaneous feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-20T17:54:50Z)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoning [63.77667876176978]
  Large language models show improved downstream task interpretability when prompted to generate step-by-step reasoning to justify their final answers. These reasoning steps greatly improve model interpretability and verification, but objectively studying their correctness is difficult. We present ROS, a suite of interpretable, unsupervised automatic scores that improve and extend previous text generation evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T15:52:39Z)
• AES Systems Are Both Overstable And Oversensitive: Explaining Why And Proposing Defenses [66.49753193098356]
  We investigate the reason behind the surprising adversarial brittleness of scoring models. Our results indicate that autoscoring models, despite getting trained as "end-to-end" models, behave like bag-of-words models. We propose detection-based protection models that can detect oversensitivity and overstability causing samples with high accuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-24T03:49:38Z)
• Evaluation Toolkit For Robustness Testing Of Automatic Essay Scoring Systems [64.4896118325552]
  We evaluate the current state-of-the-art AES models using a model adversarial evaluation scheme and associated metrics. We find that AES models are highly overstable. Even heavy modifications(as much as 25%) with content unrelated to the topic of the questions do not decrease the score produced by the models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T03:49:43Z)

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.