Date
Publisher
arXiv
Lectures are a learning experience for both students and teachers. Students
learn from teachers about the subject material, while teachers learn from
students about how to refine their instruction. However, online student
feedback is unstructured and abundant, making it challenging for teachers to
learn and improve. We take a step towards tackling this challenge. First, we
contribute a dataset for studying this problem: SIGHT is a large dataset of 288
math lecture transcripts and 15,784 comments collected from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology OpenCourseWare (MIT OCW) YouTube channel. Second, we
develop a rubric for categorizing feedback types using qualitative analysis.
Qualitative analysis methods are powerful in uncovering domain-specific
insights, however they are costly to apply to large data sources. To overcome
this challenge, we propose a set of best practices for using large language
models (LLMs) to cheaply classify the comments at scale. We observe a striking
correlation between the model's and humans' annotation: Categories with
consistent human annotations (>$0.9$ inter-rater reliability, IRR) also display
higher human-model agreement (>$0.7$), while categories with less consistent
human annotations ($0.7$-$0.8$ IRR) correspondingly demonstrate lower
human-model agreement ($0.3$-$0.5$). These techniques uncover useful student
feedback from thousands of comments, costing around $\$0.002$ per comment. We
conclude by discussing exciting future directions on using online student
feedback and improving automated annotation techniques for qualitative
research.
Study at a glance
- Question: Can AI accurately and affordably categorize student feedback from online lecture comments at scale?
- Setting and data: 288 math lecture transcripts and 15,784 comments from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology OpenCourseWare (MIT OCW) YouTube channel.
- Method: Qualitative analysis to develop a feedback rubric, and testing how well AI classifies comments compared to human annotators.
Why it matters
Teachers learn from students about how to refine their instruction, but online student feedback is unstructured and abundant, making it challenging to improve. Additionally, qualitative analysis methods are costly to apply to large data sources.
Key findings
- Across 15,784 comments from online college math lectures, large language models matched human ratings closely on feedback categories where humans strongly agreed with each other.
- The AI model's agreement with humans dropped noticeably in feedback categories where human evaluators were less consistent with one another.
- Automated AI analysis uncovered useful student feedback from thousands of comments at a cost of around $0.002 per comment.
Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design
