Towards Adaptive Feedback with AI: Comparing the Feedback Quality of LLMs and Teachers on Experimentation Protocols

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12842v1
• Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:22:14 GMT
• Title: Towards Adaptive Feedback with AI: Comparing the Feedback Quality of LLMs and Teachers on Experimentation Protocols
• Authors: Kathrin Seßler, Arne Bewersdorff, Claudia Nerdel, Enkelejda Kasneci,
• Abstract summary: This study evaluates and compares the feedback quality of large language models (LLMs) with that of human teachers and science education experts. Our results indicate that LLM-generated feedback shows no significant difference to that of teachers and experts in overall quality.
• Score: 8.71931996488953
• License:
• Abstract: Effective feedback is essential for fostering students' success in scientific inquiry. With advancements in artificial intelligence, large language models (LLMs) offer new possibilities for delivering instant and adaptive feedback. However, this feedback often lacks the pedagogical validation provided by real-world practitioners. To address this limitation, our study evaluates and compares the feedback quality of LLM agents with that of human teachers and science education experts on student-written experimentation protocols. Four blinded raters, all professionals in scientific inquiry and science education, evaluated the feedback texts generated by 1) the LLM agent, 2) the teachers and 3) the science education experts using a five-point Likert scale based on six criteria of effective feedback: Feed Up, Feed Back, Feed Forward, Constructive Tone, Linguistic Clarity, and Technical Terminology. Our results indicate that LLM-generated feedback shows no significant difference to that of teachers and experts in overall quality. However, the LLM agent's performance lags in the Feed Back dimension, which involves identifying and explaining errors within the student's work context. Qualitative analysis highlighted the LLM agent's limitations in contextual understanding and in the clear communication of specific errors. Our findings suggest that combining LLM-generated feedback with human expertise can enhance educational practices by leveraging the efficiency of LLMs and the nuanced understanding of educators.

Related papers

• Automated Assignment Grading with Large Language Models: Insights From a Bioinformatics Course [0.0]
  Natural language processing and large language models (LLMs) offer a promising solution by enabling the efficient delivery of personalized feedback. Recent advances in natural language processing and large language models (LLMs) offer a promising solution by enabling the efficient delivery of personalized feedback. Our results show that with well-designed prompts, LLMs can achieve grading accuracy and feedback quality comparable to human graders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T13:59:14Z)
• Truth or Mirage? Towards End-to-End Factuality Evaluation with LLM-Oasis [78.07225438556203]
  We introduce LLM-Oasis, the largest resource for training end-to-end factuality evaluators. It is constructed by extracting claims from Wikipedia, falsifying a subset of these claims, and generating pairs of factual and unfactual texts. We then rely on human annotators to both validate the quality of our dataset and to create a gold standard test set for factuality evaluation systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-29T12:21:15Z)
• Learning from Committee: Reasoning Distillation from a Mixture of Teachers with Peer-Review [11.756344944226495]
  We introduce a novel Fault-Aware DistIllation via Peer-Review (FAIR) approach. Instead of merely obtaining rationales from teachers, our method asks teachers to identify and explain the student's mistakes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T17:59:41Z)
• Exploring Knowledge Tracing in Tutor-Student Dialogues using LLMs [49.18567856499736]
  We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can be supportive of open-ended dialogue tutoring. We apply a range of knowledge tracing (KT) methods on the resulting labeled data to track student knowledge levels over an entire dialogue. We conduct experiments on two tutoring dialogue datasets, and show that a novel yet simple LLM-based method, LLMKT, significantly outperforms existing KT methods in predicting student response correctness in dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T22:31:39Z)
• Finding Blind Spots in Evaluator LLMs with Interpretable Checklists [23.381287828102995]
  We investigate the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators for text generation tasks. We propose FBI, a novel framework designed to examine the proficiency of Evaluator LLMs in assessing four critical abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T10:59:48Z)
• 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)
• Impact of Guidance and Interaction Strategies for LLM Use on Learner Performance and Perception [19.335003380399527]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising avenue, with increasing research exploring their educational utility. Our work highlights the role that teachers can play in shaping LLM-supported learning environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T01:21:52Z)
• Eva-KELLM: A New Benchmark for Evaluating Knowledge Editing of LLMs [54.22416829200613]
  Eva-KELLM is a new benchmark for evaluating knowledge editing of large language models. Experimental results indicate that the current methods for knowledge editing using raw documents are not effective in yielding satisfactory results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-19T09:17:19Z)
• Aligning Large Language Models with Human: A Survey [53.6014921995006]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on extensive textual corpora have emerged as leading solutions for a broad array of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Despite their notable performance, these models are prone to certain limitations such as misunderstanding human instructions, generating potentially biased content, or factually incorrect information. This survey presents a comprehensive overview of these alignment technologies, including the following aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-24T17:44:58Z)
• 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)

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.