Performance of a Large‐Language Model in scoring construction management capstone design projects
- 14 September 2024
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Computer Applications in Engineering Education
- Vol. 32 (6)
Abstract
Grading is one of the most relevant hurdles for instructors, diverting instructor's focus on the development of engaging learning activities, class preparation, and attending to students' questions. Institutions and instructors are continuously looking for alternatives to reduce educators' time required on grading, frequently, resulting in hiring teaching assistants whose inexperience and frequent rotation can lead to inconsistent and subjective evaluations. Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT‐4 may alleviate grading challenges; however, research in this field is limited when dealing with assignments requiring specialized knowledge, complex critical thinking, subjective, and creative. This research investigates whether GPT‐4's scores correlate with human grading in a construction capstone project and how the use of criteria and rubrics in GPT influences this correlation. Projects were graded by two human graders and three training configurations in GPT‐4: no detailed criteria, paraphrased criteria, and explicit rubrics. Each configuration was tested through 10 iterations to evaluate GPT consistency. Results challenge GPT‐4's potential to grade argumentative assignments. GPT‐4's score correlates slightly better (although poor overall) with human evaluations when no additional information is provided, underscoring the poor impact of the specificity of training materials for GPT scoring in this type of assignment. Despite the LLMs' promises, their limitations include variability in consistency and reliance on statistical pattern analysis, which can lead to misleading evaluations along with privacy concerns when handling sensitive student data. Educators must carefully design grading guidelines to harness the full potential of LLMs in academic assessments, balancing AI's efficiency with the need for nuanced human judgment.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- Fine-tuning ChatGPT for automatic scoringComputers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2024
- Assessing student errors in experimentation using artificial intelligence and large language models: A comparative study with human ratersComputers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2023
- Learning to Fake It: Limited Responses and Fabricated References Provided by ChatGPT for Medical QuestionsMayo Clinic Proceedings: Digital Health, 2023
- Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoringResearch Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2023
- ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for educationLearning and Individual Differences, 2023
- Application and theory gaps during the rise of Artificial Intelligence in EducationComputers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2020
- How to Write Technical Reports2019
- The ASSISTments Ecosystem: Building a Platform that Brings Scientists and Teachers Together for Minimally Invasive Research on Human Learning and TeachingInternational Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2014
- Confusion can be beneficial for learningLearning and Instruction, 2014
- Generalized Linear Models1989