skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: An Examination of the Use of Large Language Models to Aid Analysis of Textual Data
The increasing use of machine learning and Large Language Models (LLMs) opens up opportunities to use these artificially intelligent algorithms in novel ways. This article proposes a methodology using LLMs to support traditional deductive coding in qualitative research. We began our analysis with three different sample texts taken from existing interviews. Next, we created a codebook and inputted the sample text and codebook into an LLM. We asked the LLM to determine if the codes were present in a sample text provided and requested evidence to support the coding. The sample texts were inputted 160 times to record changes between iterations of the LLM response. Each iteration was analogous to a new coder deductively analyzing the text with the codebook information. In our results, we present the outputs for these recursive analyses, along with a comparison of the LLM coding to evaluations made by human coders using traditional coding methods. We argue that LLM analysis can aid qualitative researchers by deductively coding transcripts, providing a systematic and reliable platform for code identification, and offering a means of avoiding analysis misalignment. Implications of using LLM in research praxis are discussed, along with current limitations.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1811265
PAR ID:
10544479
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Sage
Date Published:
Journal Name:
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Volume:
23
ISSN:
1609-4069
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. (, EPJ Data Science)
    Abstract Qualitative coding, or content analysis, is more than just labeling text: it is a reflexive interpretive practice that shapes research questions, refines theoretical insights, and illuminates subtle social dynamics. As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly adept at nuanced language tasks, questions arise about whether—and how—they can assist in large-scale coding without eroding the interpretive depth that distinguishes qualitative analysis from traditional machine learning and other quantitative approaches to natural language processing. In this paper, we present a hybrid approach that preserves hermeneutic value while incorporating LLMs to scale the application of codes to large data sets that are impractical for manual coding. Our workflow retains the traditional cycle of codebook development and refinement, adding an iterative step to adapt definitions for machine comprehension, before ultimately replacing manual with automated text categorization. We demonstrate how to rewrite code descriptions for LLM-interpretation, as well as how structured prompts and prompting the model to explain its coding decisions (chain-of-thought) can substantially improve fidelity. Empirically, our case study of socio-historical codes highlights the promise of frontier AI language models to reliably interpret paragraph-long passages representative of a humanistic study. Throughout, we emphasize ethical and practical considerations, preserving space for critical reflection, and the ongoing need for human researchers’ interpretive leadership. These strategies can guide both traditional and computational scholars aiming to harness automation effectively and responsibly—maintaining the creative, reflexive rigor of qualitative coding while capitalizing on the efficiency afforded by LLMs. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; (, Association for Computational Linguistics)
    Recent advances in LLMs offer new opportunities for supporting student writing, particularly through real-time, composition-level feedback. However, for such support to be effective, LLMs need to generate text completions that align with the writer’s internal representation of their developing message, a representation that is often implicit and difficult to observe. This paper investigates the use of eyetracking data, specifically lookback fixations during pauses in text production, as a cue to this internal representation. Using eye movement data from students composing texts, we compare human-generated completions with LLM-generated completions based on prompts that either include or exclude words and sentences fixated during pauses. We find that incorporating lookback fixations enhances human-LLM alignment in generating text completions. These results provide empirical support for generating fixation-aware LLM feedback and lay the foundation for future educational tools that deliver real-time, composition-level feedback grounded in writers’ attention and cognitive processes. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; (, ASEE Conferences)
    Introduction: Recent AI advances, particularly the introduction of large language models (LLMs), have expanded the capacity to automate various tasks, including the analysis of text. This capability may be especially helpful in education research, where lack of resources often hampers the ability to perform various kinds of analyses, particularly those requiring a high level of expertise in a domain and/or a large set of textual data. For instance, we recently coded approximately 10,000 state K-12 computer science standards, requiring over 200 hours of work by subject matter experts. If LLMs are capable of completing a task such as this, the savings in human resources would be immense. Research Questions: This study explores two research questions: (1) How do LLMs compare to humans in the performance of an education research task? and (2) What do errors in LLM performance on this task suggest about current LLM capabilities and limitations? Methodology: We used a random sample of state K-12 computer science standards. We compared the output of three LLMs – ChatGPT, Llama, and Claude – to the work of human subject matter experts in coding the relationship between each state standard and a set of national K-12 standards. Specifically, the LLMs and the humans determined whether each state standard was identical to, similar to, based on, or different from the national standards and (if it was not different) which national standard it resembled. Results: Each of the LLMs identified a different national standard than the subject matter expert in about half of instances. When the LLM identified the same standard, it usually categorized the type of relationship (i.e., identical to, similar to, based on) in the same way as the human expert. However, the LLMs sometimes misidentified ‘identical’ standards. Discussion: Our results suggest that LLMs are not currently capable of matching human performance on the task of classifying learning standards. The mis-identification of some state standards as identical to national standards – when they clearly were not – is an interesting error, given that traditional computing technologies can easily identify identical text. Similarly, some of the mismatches between the LLM and human performance indicate clear errors on the part of the LLMs. However, some of the mismatches are difficult to assess, given the ambiguity inherent in this task and the potential for human error. We conclude the paper with recommendations for the use of LLMs in education research based on these findings. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; (, American Educational Research Association)
    As an integral part of qualitative research inquiry, field notes provide important data from researchers embedded in research sites. However, field notes can vary significantly, influenced by the researchers' immersion in the field, prior knowledge, beliefs, interests, and perspectives. As consequence, their interpretation presents significant challenges. This study offers a preliminary investigation into the potential of using large language models to assist researchers with the analysis and interpretation of field notes data. Our methodology consisted of two phases. First, a researcher deductively coded field notes of six classroom implementations of a novel elementary-level mathematics curriculum. In the second phase, we prompted ChatGPT-4 to code the same field notes, using the codebook, definitions, examples, and deductive coding approach employed by the researcher. We also prompted Chatgpt to provide justifications of its coding decisions We then, calculated agreements and disagreements between ChatGPT and the researcher, organized the data in a contingency table, computed Cohen's Kappa, structured the data into a confusion matrix; and using the researcher’s coding as the “gold standard”, we calculated performance measures, specifically: Accuracy, Precision, Recall, and F1 Score. Our findings revealed that while the researcher and ChatGPT appeared to generally agree on the frequency in applying the different codes, overall agreement, as measured by Cohen’s Kappa was low. In contrast, using measures from information science at the code level revealed more nuanced results. Moreover, coupled with ChatGPT justifications of coding decisions, these findings provided insights than can help support the iterative improvement of codebooks. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, ICML conference.)
    We present an approach for estimating the fraction of text in a large corpus which is likely to be substantially modified or produced by a large language model (LLM). Our maximum likelihood model leverages expert-written and AI-generated reference texts to accurately and efficiently examine real-world LLM-use at the corpus level. We apply this approach to a case study of scientific peer review in AI conferences that took place after the release of ChatGPT: ICLR 2024, NeurIPS 2023, CoRL 2023 and EMNLP 2023. Our results suggest that between 6.5% and 16.9% of text submitted as peer reviews to these conferences could have been substantially modified by LLMs, i.e. beyond spell-checking or minor writing updates. The circumstances in which generated text occurs offer insight into user behavior: the estimated fraction of LLM-generated text is higher in reviews which report lower confidence, were submitted close to the deadline, and from reviewers who are less likely to respond to author rebuttals. We also observe corpus-level trends in generated text which may be too subtle to detect at the individual level, and discuss the implications of such trends on peer review. We call for future interdisciplinary work to examine how LLM use is changing our information and knowledge practices. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email