Are Large Language Models Good Essay Graders?
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Explores whether large language models (LLMs) can effectively grade student essays
- Assesses the capabilities and limitations of LLMs as essay graders
- Examines the potential benefits and challenges of using LLMs for automated essay scoring
Plain English Explanation
The paper investigates whether large language models can be used as effective essay graders. Large language models are AI systems trained on vast amounts of text data, giving them the ability to understand and generate human-like language. The researchers wanted to see if these models could be leveraged to automatically score student proficiency by assessing the quality of essays.
The study explores the potential benefits of using LLMs for collaborative essay scoring between humans and machines. This could make the grading process more efficient and consistent. However, the researchers also examine the limitations and challenges of relying solely on LLMs to grade student essays.
Overall, the paper provides a nuanced look at the role LLMs could play in automated essay grading, considering both the advantages and potential drawbacks of this approach.
Technical Explanation
The paper first outlines the key research questions, which focus on assessing the capabilities of LLMs to accurately grade essays and exploring the feasibility of using them as partners in the essay scoring process.
The researchers then describe their experimental setup, which involved training several LLM-based essay grading models on a large dataset of student essays. They evaluated the models' performance by comparing their scores to those assigned by human graders, using metrics like correlation, absolute error, and agreement rates.
The results suggest that while LLM-based models can achieve reasonable performance on some essay grading tasks, they still fall short of human-level accuracy in many cases. The models struggle with aspects like capturing nuanced understanding of the essay content and providing constructive feedback.
The paper also discusses the potential benefits of using LLMs to assist human graders, such as improving consistency and efficiency. However, it highlights the need for careful implementation and ongoing human oversight to ensure the reliability and fairness of the grading process.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough and balanced evaluation of the use of LLMs for essay grading. It acknowledges the potential advantages of this approach, such as increased efficiency and reduced grading workload for human instructors. However, it also rightly highlights the significant limitations of relying solely on LLMs for this task.
One key limitation is the models' inability to fully capture the nuanced understanding and contextual awareness that human graders bring to the assessment of essays. The paper suggests that LLMs may struggle to identify and appreciate the deeper meaning, creativity, and critical thinking exhibited in student writing.
Additionally, the researchers note the potential for bias and inconsistency in LLM-based grading, which could undermine the fairness of the assessment process. Ensuring the transparency and accountability of these systems is crucial, as is the need for ongoing human oversight and intervention.
The paper encourages further research to address these challenges and explore ways in which LLMs and human graders can collaborate effectively to leverage the strengths of both approaches. Investigating methods to enhance the interpretability and adaptability of LLM-based grading models may also be a fruitful area of inquiry.
Conclusion
This paper provides a thoughtful examination of the potential and limitations of using large language models for automated essay grading. While LLMs show promise in certain aspects of this task, the research suggests that they are not yet capable of fully replacing human graders.
The findings highlight the need for a balanced approach that leverages the strengths of both humans and machines, with LLMs serving as assistive tools rather than sole decision-makers. Ongoing research and development in this area could lead to more effective automated essay scoring systems that enhance the efficiency and consistency of the grading process while maintaining the critical role of human assessment.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Are Large Language Models Good Essay Graders?
Anindita Kundu, Denilson Barbosa
We evaluate the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in assessing essay quality, focusing on their alignment with human grading. More precisely, we evaluate ChatGPT and Llama in the Automated Essay Scoring (AES) task, a crucial natural language processing (NLP) application in Education. We consider both zero-shot and few-shot learning and different prompting approaches. We compare the numeric grade provided by the LLMs to human rater-provided scores utilizing the ASAP dataset, a well-known benchmark for the AES task. Our research reveals that both LLMs generally assign lower scores compared to those provided by the human raters; moreover, those scores do not correlate well with those provided by the humans. In particular, ChatGPT tends to be harsher and further misaligned with human evaluations than Llama. We also experiment with a number of essay features commonly used by previous AES methods, related to length, usage of connectives and transition words, and readability metrics, including the number of spelling and grammar mistakes. We find that, generally, none of these features correlates strongly with human or LLM scores. Finally, we report results on Llama 3, which are generally better across the board, as expected. Overall, while LLMs do not seem an adequate replacement for human grading, our results are somewhat encouraging for their use as a tool to assist humans in the grading of written essays in the future.
Read more9/23/2024
0
Can Large Language Models Automatically Score Proficiency of Written Essays?
Watheq Mansour, Salam Albatarni, Sohaila Eltanbouly, Tamer Elsayed
Although several methods were proposed to address the problem of automated essay scoring (AES) in the last 50 years, there is still much to desire in terms of effectiveness. Large Language Models (LLMs) are transformer-based models that demonstrate extraordinary capabilities on various tasks. In this paper, we test the ability of LLMs, given their powerful linguistic knowledge, to analyze and effectively score written essays. We experimented with two popular LLMs, namely ChatGPT and Llama. We aim to check if these models can do this task and, if so, how their performance is positioned among the state-of-the-art (SOTA) models across two levels, holistically and per individual writing trait. We utilized prompt-engineering tactics in designing four different prompts to bring their maximum potential to this task. Our experiments conducted on the ASAP dataset revealed several interesting observations. First, choosing the right prompt depends highly on the model and nature of the task. Second, the two LLMs exhibited comparable average performance in AES, with a slight advantage for ChatGPT. Finally, despite the performance gap between the two LLMs and SOTA models in terms of predictions, they provide feedback to enhance the quality of the essays, which can potentially help both teachers and students.
Read more4/17/2024
0
Human-AI Collaborative Essay Scoring: A Dual-Process Framework with LLMs
Changrong Xiao, Wenxing Ma, Qingping Song, Sean Xin Xu, Kunpeng Zhang, Yufang Wang, Qi Fu
Receiving timely and personalized feedback is essential for second-language learners, especially when human instructors are unavailable. This study explores the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs), including both proprietary and open-source models, for Automated Essay Scoring (AES). Through extensive experiments with public and private datasets, we find that while LLMs do not surpass conventional state-of-the-art (SOTA) grading models in performance, they exhibit notable consistency, generalizability, and explainability. We propose an open-source LLM-based AES system, inspired by the dual-process theory. Our system offers accurate grading and high-quality feedback, at least comparable to that of fine-tuned proprietary LLMs, in addition to its ability to alleviate misgrading. Furthermore, we conduct human-AI co-grading experiments with both novice and expert graders. We find that our system not only automates the grading process but also enhances the performance and efficiency of human graders, particularly for essays where the model has lower confidence. These results highlight the potential of LLMs to facilitate effective human-AI collaboration in the educational context, potentially transforming learning experiences through AI-generated feedback.
Read more6/18/2024
💬
0
Large Language Models as Partners in Student Essay Evaluation
Toru Ishida, Tongxi Liu, Hailong Wang, William K. Cheung
As the importance of comprehensive evaluation in workshop courses increases, there is a growing demand for efficient and fair assessment methods that reduce the workload for faculty members. This paper presents an evaluation conducted with Large Language Models (LLMs) using actual student essays in three scenarios: 1) without providing guidance such as rubrics, 2) with pre-specified rubrics, and 3) through pairwise comparison of essays. Quantitative analysis of the results revealed a strong correlation between LLM and faculty member assessments in the pairwise comparison scenario with pre-specified rubrics, although concerns about the quality and stability of evaluations remained. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative analysis of LLM assessment comments, showing that: 1) LLMs can match the assessment capabilities of faculty members, 2) variations in LLM assessments should be interpreted as diversity rather than confusion, and 3) assessments by humans and LLMs can differ and complement each other. In conclusion, this paper suggests that LLMs should not be seen merely as assistants to faculty members but as partners in evaluation committees and outlines directions for further research.
Read more5/30/2024