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

FEAT: A Preference Feedback Dataset through a Cost-Effective Auto-Generation and Labeling Framework for English AI Tutoring

Authors
Hyein Seo,
Taewook Hwang,
Yohan Lee,
Sangkeun Jung
Date
Publisher
arXiv
In English education tutoring, teacher feedback is essential for guiding students. Recently, AI-based tutoring systems have emerged to assist teachers; however, these systems require high-quality and large-scale teacher feedback data, which is both time-consuming and costly to generate manually. In this study, we propose FEAT, a cost-effective framework for generating teacher feedback, and have constructed three complementary datasets: (1) DIRECT-Manual (DM), where both humans and large language models (LLMs) collaboratively generate high-quality teacher feedback, albeit at a higher cost; (2) DIRECT-Generated (DG), an LLM-only generated, cost-effective dataset with lower quality;, and (3) DIRECT-Augmented (DA), primarily based on DG with a small portion of DM added to enhance quality while maintaining cost-efficiency. Experimental results showed that incorporating a small portion of DM (5-10%) into DG leads to superior performance compared to using 100% DM alone.
Study at a glance
  • Question: How can high-quality teacher feedback data be generated cost-effectively for English tutoring systems?
  • Setting and data: Not stated in the abstract
  • Method: Creation and experimental testing of three teacher feedback datasets generated by humans and AI
Why it matters

In English education tutoring, teacher feedback is essential for guiding students. While AI tutoring systems can assist teachers, they require high-quality, large-scale feedback data that is time-consuming and costly to generate manually.

Key findings
  • In English tutoring, adding 5% to 10% human-assisted feedback to AI-generated feedback led to superior performance compared to using entirely human-assisted feedback.
  • Tutoring feedback generated solely by AI models was cost-effective, but lower in quality than feedback developed collaboratively with humans.
  • Teacher feedback developed through human and AI collaboration achieved high quality, but required higher generation costs.

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?