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: Assessing Educational Quality: Comparative Analysis of Crowdsourced, Expert, and AI-Driven Rubric Applications
Exposing students to low-quality assessments such as multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and short answer questions (SAQs) is detrimental to their learning, making it essential to accurately evaluate these assessments. Existing evaluation methods are often challenging to scale and fail to consider their pedagogical value within course materials. Online crowds offer a scalable and cost-effective source of intelligence, but often lack necessary domain expertise. Advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) offer automation and scalability, but may also lack precise domain knowledge. To explore these trade-offs, we compare the effectiveness and reliability of crowdsourced and LLM-based methods for assessing the quality of 30 MCQs and SAQs across six educational domains using two standardized evaluation rubrics. We analyzed the performance of 84 crowdworkers from Amazon's Mechanical Turk and Prolific, comparing their quality evaluations to those made by the three LLMs: GPT-4, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Claude 3 Opus. We found that crowdworkers on Prolific consistently delivered the highest-quality assessments, and GPT-4 emerged as the most effective LLM for this task. Our study reveals that while traditional crowdsourced methods often yield more accurate assessments, LLMs can match this accuracy in specific evaluative criteria. These results provide evidence for a hybrid approach to educational content evaluation, integrating the scalability of AI with the nuanced judgment of humans. We offer feasibility considerations in using AI to supplement human judgment in educational assessment.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2135159
PAR ID:
10553100
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Publisher / Repository:
HCOMP2024
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing
Volume:
12
ISSN:
2769-1330
Page Range / eLocation ID:
115 to 125
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; (, L@S '24: Proceedings of the Eleventh (2024) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale)
    Evaluating the quality of automatically generated question items has been a long standing challenge. In this paper, we leverage LLMs to simulate student profiles and generate responses to multiple-choice questions (MCQs). The generative students' responses to MCQs can further support question item evaluation. We propose Generative Students, a prompt architecture designed based on the KLI framework. A generative student profile is a function of the list of knowledge components the student has mastered, has confusion about or has no evidence of knowledge of. We instantiate the Generative Students concept on the subject domain of heuristic evaluation. We created 45 generative students using GPT-4 and had them respond to 20 MCQs. We found that the generative students produced logical and believable responses that were aligned with their profiles. We then compared the generative students' responses to real students' responses on the same set of MCQs and found a high correlation. Moreover, there was considerable overlap in the difficult questions identified by generative students and real students. A subsequent case study demonstrated that an instructor could improve question quality based on the signals provided by Generative Students. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ; (, ACM)
    As large language models (LLMs) show great promise in generating a wide spectrum of educational materials, robust yet cost-effective assessment of the quality and effectiveness of such materials becomes an important challenge. Traditional approaches, including expert-based quality assessment and student-centered evaluation, are resource-consuming, and do not scale efficiently. In this work, we explored the use of pre-existing student learning data as a promising approach to evaluate LLM-generated learning materials. Specifically, we used a dataset where students were completing the program construction challenges by picking the correct answers among human-authored distractors to evaluate the quality of LLM-generated distractors for the same challenges. The dataset included responses from 1,071 students across 22 classes taught from Fall 2017 to Spring 2023. We evaluated five prominent LLMs (OpenAI-o1, GPT-4, GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, and Llama-3.1-8b) across three different prompts to see which combinations result in more effective distractors, i.e., those that are plausible (often picked by students), and potentially based on common misconceptions. Our results suggest that GPT-4o was the most effective model, matching close to 50% of the functional distractors originally authored by humans. At the same time, all of the evaluated LLMs generated many novel distractors, i.e., those that did not match the pre-existing human-authored ones. Our preliminary analysis shows that those appear to be promising. Establishing their effectiveness in real-world classroom settings is left for future work. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; (, Association for Computational Linguistics)
    Jiang, Jing; Reitter, David; Deng, Shumin (Ed.)
    This paper explores utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) to perform Cross-Document Event Coreference Resolution (CDEC) annotations and evaluates how they fare against human annotators with different levels of training. Specifically, we formulate CDEC as a multi-category classification problem on pairs of events that are represented as decontextualized sentences, and compare the predictions of GPT-4 with the judgment of fully trained annotators and crowdworkers on the same data set. Our study indicates that GPT-4 with zero-shot learning outperformed crowd-workers by a large margin and exhibits a level of performance comparable to trained annotators. Upon closer analysis, GPT-4 also exhibits tendencies of being overly confident, and force annotation decisions even when such decisions are not warranted due to insufficient information. Our results have implications on how to perform complicated annotations such as CDEC in the age of LLMs, and show that the best way to acquire such annotations might be to combine the strengths of LLMs and trained human annotators in the annotation process, and using untrained or undertrained crowdworkers is no longer a viable option to acquire high-quality data to advance the state of the art for such problems. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ; (, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.01620)
    Thematic Analysis (TA) is a fundamental method in healthcare research for analyzing transcript data, but it is resource-intensive and difficult to scale for large, complex datasets. This study investigates the potential of large language models (LLMs) to augment the inductive TA process in high-stakes healthcare settings. Focusing on interview transcripts from parents of children with Anomalous Aortic Origin of a Coronary Artery (AAOCA), a rare congenital heart disease, we propose an LLM-Enhanced Thematic Analysis (LLM-TA) pipeline. Our pipeline integrates an affordable state-of-the-art LLM (GPT-4o mini), LangChain, and prompt engineering with chunking techniques to analyze nine detailed transcripts following the inductive TA framework. We evaluate the LLM-generated themes against human-generated results using thematic similarity metrics, LLM-assisted assessments, and expert reviews. Results demonstrate that our pipeline outperforms existing LLM-assisted TA methods significantly. While the pipeline alone has not yet reached human-level quality in inductive TA, it shows great potential to improve scalability, efficiency, and accuracy while reducing analyst workload when working collaboratively with domain experts. We provide practical recommendations for incorporating LLMs into high-stakes TA workflows and emphasize the importance of close collaboration with domain experts to address challenges related to real-world applicability and dataset complexity. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; (, Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics)
    Rambow, Owen; Wanner, Leo; Apidianaki, Marianna; Khalifa, Hend; Eugenio, Barbara; Schockaert, Steven (Ed.)
    We propose a novel framework that leverages Visual Question Answering (VQA) models to automate the evaluation of LLM-generated data visualizations. Traditional evaluation methods often rely on human judgment, which is costly and unscalable, or focus solely on data accuracy, neglecting the effectiveness of visual communication. By employing VQA models, we assess data representation quality and the general communicative clarity of charts. Experiments were conducted using two leading VQA benchmark datasets, ChartQA and PlotQA, with visualizations generated by OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 Turbo and Meta’s Llama 3.1 70B-Instruct models. Our results indicate that LLM-generated charts do not match the accuracy of the original non-LLM-generated charts based on VQA performance measures. Moreover, while our results demonstrate that few-shot prompting significantly boosts the accuracy of chart generation, considerable progress remains to be made before LLMs can fully match the precision of human-generated graphs. This underscores the importance of our work, which expedites the research process by enabling rapid iteration without the need for human annotation, thus accelerating advancements in this field. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email