Search and Filter

Repository Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the repository's content relevance and usability. Please share your thoughts to help us better serve researchers and practitioners.

Submit feedback

Submit a research study

Contribute to the repository:

Add a paper

Dean of LLM Tutors: Exploring Comprehensive and Automated Evaluation of LLM-generated Educational Feedback via LLM Feedback Evaluators

Authors
Keyang Qian,
Yixin Cheng,
Rui Guan,
Wei Dai,
Flora Jin,
Kaixun Yang,
Sadia Nawaz,
Zachari Swiecki,
Guanliang Chen,
Lixiang Yan,
Dragan Ga_evic
Date
Publisher
arXiv
The use of LLM tutors to provide automated educational feedback to students on student assignment submissions has received much attention in the AI in Education field. However, the stochastic nature and tendency for hallucinations in LLMs can undermine both quality of learning experience and adherence to ethical standards. To address this concern, we propose a method that uses LLM feedback evaluators (DeanLLMs) to automatically and comprehensively evaluate feedback generated by LLM tutor for submissions on university assignments before it is delivered to students. This allows low-quality feedback to be rejected and enables LLM tutors to improve the feedback they generated based on the evaluation results. We first proposed a comprehensive evaluation framework for LLM-generated educational feedback, comprising six dimensions for feedback content, seven for feedback effectiveness, and three for hallucination types. Next, we generated a virtual assignment submission dataset covering 85 university assignments from 43 computer science courses using eight commonly used commercial LLMs. We labelled and open-sourced the assignment dataset to support the fine-tuning and evaluation of LLM feedback evaluators. Our findings show that o3-pro demonstrated the best performance in zero-shot labelling of feedback while o4-mini demonstrated the best performance in few-shot labelling of feedback. Moreover, GPT-4.1 achieved human expert level performance after fine-tuning (Accuracy 79.8%, F1-score 79.4%; human average Accuracy 78.3%, F1-score 82.6%). Finally, we used our best-performance model to evaluate 2,000 assignment feedback instances generated by 10 common commercial LLMs, 200 each, to compare the quality of feedback generated by different LLMs. Our LLM feedback evaluator method advances our ability to automatically provide high-quality and reliable educational feedback to students.
Study at a glance
  • Question: Can AI models reliably evaluate the quality of feedback generated by AI tutors for student assignments?
  • Setting and data: 85 university assignments from 43 computer science courses and 2,000 AI-generated feedback instances.
  • Method: Testing how well AI models evaluate feedback created by AI tutors on student assignments.
Why it matters

Although LLM tutors can provide automated feedback on student assignments, their stochastic nature and tendency for hallucinations can undermine both the quality of the learning experience and adherence to ethical standards.

Key findings
  • Across 85 university computer science assignments, a trained AI tool evaluated student feedback about as accurately as human experts.
  • Without training examples, one AI model evaluated feedback best, while another model performed best when given a few examples.
  • The automated evaluation method advances the ability to provide high-quality, reliable feedback to students by assessing responses from commercial AI models.

Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.

Who is the user?
Who age?