Search for: All records

This paper explores the differences between two types of natural language conversations between a student and pedagogical agent(s). Both types of conversations were created for formative assessment purposes. The first type is conversation-based assessment created via knowledge engineering which requires a large amount of human effort. The second type, which is less costly to produce, uses prompt engineering for LLMs based on Evidence-Centered design to create these conversations and glean evidence about students¿½f knowledge, skills and abilities. The current work compares linguistic features of the artificial agent(s) discourse moves in natural language conversations created by the two methodologies. Results indicate that more complex conversations are created by the prompt engineering method which may be more adaptive than the knowledge engineering approach. However, the affordances of prompt engi-neered, LLM generated conversation-based assessment may create more challenges for scoring than the original knowledge engineered conversations. Limitations and implications are dis-cussed.