Measuring Teaching with LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.22968v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 03:42:04 GMT
• Title: Measuring Teaching with LLMs
• Authors: Michael Hardy,
• Abstract summary: This paper uses custom Large Language Models built on sentence-level embeddings.<n>We show that these specialized models can achieve human-level and even super-human performance with expert human ratings above 0.65.<n>We also find that aggregate model scores align with teacher value-added measures, indicating they are capturing features relevant to student learning.
• Score: 4.061135251278187
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Objective and scalable measurement of teaching quality is a persistent challenge in education. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer potential, general-purpose models have struggled to reliably apply complex, authentic classroom observation instruments. This paper uses custom LLMs built on sentence-level embeddings, an architecture better suited for the long-form, interpretive nature of classroom transcripts than conventional subword tokenization. We systematically evaluate five different sentence embeddings under a data-efficient training regime designed to prevent overfitting. Our results demonstrate that these specialized models can achieve human-level and even super-human performance with expert human ratings above 0.65 and surpassing the average human-human rater correlation. Further, through analysis of annotation context windows, we find that more advanced models-those better aligned with human judgments-attribute a larger share of score variation to lesson-level features rather than isolated utterances, challenging the sufficiency of single-turn annotation paradigms. Finally, to assess external validity, we find that aggregate model scores align with teacher value-added measures, indicating they are capturing features relevant to student learning. However, this trend does not hold at the individual item level, suggesting that while the models learn useful signals, they have not yet achieved full generalization. This work establishes a viable and powerful new methodology for AI-driven instructional measurement, offering a path toward providing scalable, reliable, and valid feedback for educator development.

Related papers

• Beyond Holistic Scores: Automatic Trait-Based Quality Scoring of Argumentative Essays [15.895792302323883]
  In educational contexts, teachers and learners require interpretable, trait-level feedback.<n>We study trait-based Automatic Argumentative Essay Scoring using two complementary modeling paradigms.<n>We show that explicitly modeling score ordinality substantially improves agreement with human raters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T14:30:52Z)
• How well do Large Language Models Recognize Instructional Moves? Establishing Baselines for Foundation Models in Educational Discourse [0.15469452301122177]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in educational technologies for a variety of tasks.<n>We compared six LLMs to estimate their baseline performance on a simple but important task: classifying instructional moves in classroom transcripts.<n>We found that while zero-shot performance was moderate, providing comprehensive examples significantly improved performance for state-of-the-art models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T22:08:32Z)
• Reference-Specific Unlearning Metrics Can Hide the Truth: A Reality Check [60.77691669644931]
  We propose Functional Alignment for Distributional Equivalence (FADE), a novel metric that measures distributional similarity between unlearned and reference models.<n>We show that FADE captures functional alignment across the entire output distribution, providing a principled assessment of genuine unlearning.<n>These findings expose fundamental gaps in current evaluation practices and demonstrate that FADE provides a more robust foundation for developing and assessing truly effective unlearning methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T20:50:30Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models for Personalized Guidance in AI-Enhanced Learning [4.990353320509215]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly envisioned as intelligent assistants for personalized learning.<n>This study presents an empirical comparison of three state-of-the-art LLMs on a tutoring task simulating a realistic learning setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T14:21:59Z)
• Comparing Human Expertise and Large Language Models Embeddings in Content Validity Assessment of Personality Tests [0.0]
  We explore the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in assessing the content validity of psychometric instruments.<n>Using both human expert evaluations and advanced LLMs, we compared the accuracy of semantic item-construct alignment.<n>The results reveal distinct strengths and limitations of human and AI approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-15T10:54:35Z)
• Maximizing Signal in Human-Model Preference Alignment [0.0]
  This paper argues that in cases in which end users need to agree with the decisions made by ML models, models should be trained and evaluated on data that represent their preferences.<n>We show that noise in labeling disagreement can be minimized by adhering to proven methodological best practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T19:10:57Z)
• Training an LLM-as-a-Judge Model: Pipeline, Insights, and Practical Lessons [9.954960702259918]
  This paper introduces Themis, a fine-tuned large language model (LLMs) judge that delivers context-aware evaluations.<n>We provide a comprehensive overview of the development pipeline for Themis, highlighting its scenario-dependent evaluation prompts.<n>We introduce two human-labeled benchmarks for meta-evaluation, demonstrating that Themis can achieve high alignment with human preferences in an economical manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T08:35:55Z)
• Disentangling Length Bias In Preference Learning Via Response-Conditioned Modeling [87.17041933863041]
  Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has achieved considerable success in aligning large language models (LLMs)<n>We introduce a $textbfR$esponse-$textbfc$onditioned $textbfB$radley-$textbfT$erry (Rc-BT) model that enhances the model's capability in length bias mitigating and length instruction following.<n>We also propose the Rc-RM and Rc-DPO algorithm to leverage the Rc-BT model for reward modeling and direct policy optimization
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-02T14:50:25Z)
• Self-Evolving Critique Abilities in Large Language Models [59.861013614500024]
  This paper explores enhancing critique abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We introduce SCRIT, a framework that trains LLMs with self-generated data to evolve their critique abilities.<n>Our analysis reveals that SCRIT's performance scales positively with data and model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T05:51:52Z)
• Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
  Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment. To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory [64.71038763708161]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to a series of breakthroughs in natural language processing (NLP) What further sets these models apart is the massive amounts of world knowledge they internalize during pretraining. How the model's world knowledge interacts with the factual information presented in the context remains under explored.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-09T18:58:29Z)

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.