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

Evaluating Students' Open-ended Written Responses with LLMs: Using the RAG Framework for GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Claude-3, and Mistral-Large

Authors
Jussi S. Jauhiainen,
Agust’n Garagorry Guerra
Date
Publisher
arXiv
Evaluating open-ended written examination responses from students is an essential yet time-intensive task for educators, requiring a high degree of effort, consistency, and precision. Recent developments in Large Language Models (LLMs) present a promising opportunity to balance the need for thorough evaluation with efficient use of educators' time. In our study, we explore the effectiveness of LLMs ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Claude-3, and Mistral-Large in assessing university students' open-ended answers to questions made about reference material they have studied. Each model was instructed to evaluate 54 answers repeatedly under two conditions: 10 times (10-shot) with a temperature setting of 0.0 and 10 times with a temperature of 0.5, expecting a total of 1,080 evaluations per model and 4,320 evaluations across all models. The RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation) framework was used as the framework to make the LLMs to process the evaluation of the answers. As of spring 2024, our analysis revealed notable variations in consistency and the grading outcomes provided by studied LLMs. There is a need to comprehend strengths and weaknesses of LLMs in educational settings for evaluating open-ended written responses. Further comparative research is essential to determine the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of using LLMs for educational assessments.
Study at a glance
  • Question: How well can artificial intelligence models grade university students' open-ended written answers?
  • Setting and data: 54 open-ended exam answers from university students, spring 2024.
  • Method: Automated comparison of four AI models repeatedly grading responses across two settings (Retrieval Augmented Generation).
Why it matters

Evaluating students' open-ended written examination responses is an essential yet time-intensive task requiring high effort, consistency, and precision. Large Language Models offer a promising opportunity to balance thorough evaluation with the efficient use of educators' time.

Key findings
  • In assessing 54 university student responses, leading language models showed notable variations in their grading consistency.
  • The evaluated language models produced notably different grading outcomes when scoring the same student answers.
  • Across 4,320 evaluations, the models showed notable variations in scoring consistency across repeated attempts and settings.

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?
Who age?