Date
Publisher
ACM Digital Library
This paper presents reports on a series of experiments with a novel dataset evaluating how well Large Language Models (LLMs) can mark (i.e. grade) open text responses to short answer questions, Specifically, we explore how well different combinations of GPT version and prompt engineering strategies performed at marking real student answers to short answer across different domain areas (Science and History) and grade-levels (spanning ages 5-16) using a new, never-used-before dataset from Carousel, a quizzing platform. We found that GPT-4, with basic few-shot prompting performed well (Kappa, 0.70) and, importantly, very close to human-level performance (0.75). This research builds on prior findings that GPT4 could reliably score short answer reading comprehension questions at a performance-level very close to that of expert human raters. The proximity to human-level performance, across a variety of subjects and grade levels suggests that LLMs could be a valuable tool for supporting low-stakes formative assessment tasks in K-12 education and has important implications for real-world education delivery.
Study at a glance
- Question: How accurately can artificial intelligence grade student short-answer responses across different subjects and grade levels?
- Setting and data: Student answers in science and history from the Carousel quizzing platform, covering students ages 5–16.
- Method: Experiments comparing how accurately different AI models and prompt strategies grade student answers compared to human scoring.
Why it matters
Prior findings showed that GPT-4 could reliably score reading comprehension questions. It remains to be evaluated how well different language models and prompt engineering strategies mark real student short answers across different subject areas and grade levels.
Key findings
- In science and history for students aged 5 to 16, an AI model graded short-answer questions nearly as accurately as human markers.
- Providing the model with a few basic examples was sufficient to achieve grading performance close to human evaluators.
- The model's near-human grading accuracy was demonstrated across both tested subjects and multiple grade levels.
Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Why use AI?
Study design
