Detecting LLM-Generated Short Answers and Effects on Learner Performance
Authors:
- Shambhavi BhushanSBShambhavi Bhushan
- Danielle R ThomasDTDanielle R Thomas
- Conrad BorchersCBConrad Borchers
- Isha RaghuvanshiIRIsha Raghuvanshi
- Ralph AbboudRARalph Abboud
- Erin GatzEGErin Gatz
- Shivang GuptaSGShivang Gupta
- Kenneth KoedingerKKKenneth Koedinger
Preprint
Abstract
The increasing availability of large language models (LLMs) has raised concerns about their potential misuse in online learning. While tools for detecting LLM-generated text exist and are widely used by researchers and educators, their reliability varies. Few studies have compared the accuracy of detection methods, defined criteria to identify content generated by LLM, or evaluated the effect on learner performance from LLM misuse within learning. In this study, we define LLM-generated text within open responses as those produced by any LLM without paraphrasing or refinement, as evaluated by human coders. We then fine-tune GPT-4o to detect LLM-generated responses and assess the impact on learning from LLM misuse. We find that our fine-tuned LLM outperforms the existing AI detection tool GPTZero, achieving an accuracy of 80% and an F1 score of 0.78, compared to GPTZero's accuracy of 70% and macro F1 score of 0.50, demonstrating superior performance in detecting LLM-generated responses. We also find that learners suspected of LLM misuse in the open response question were more than twice as likely to correctly answer the corresponding posttest MCQ, suggesting potential misuse across both question types and indicating a bypass of the learning process. We pave the way for future work by demonstrating a structured, code-based approach to improve LLM-generated response detection and propose using auxiliary statistical indicators such as unusually high assessment scores on related tasks, readability scores, and response duration. In support of open science, we contribute data and code to support the fine-tuning of similar models for similar use cases.Keywords
All Related Versions
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Fine-tuning AI models for enhanced consistency and precision in chemistry educational assessmentsComputers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2025
- Fine-Tuning Large Language Models for Specialized Use CasesMayo Clinic Proceedings: Digital Health, 2024
- StyloAI: Distinguishing AI-Generated Content with Stylometric Analysis2024
- Do teachers spot AI? Evaluating the detectability of AI-generated texts among student essaysComputers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2024
- A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essaysScientific Reports, 2023
- “Chatting with ChatGPT”: Analyzing the factors influencing users' intention to Use the Open AI's ChatGPT using the UTAUT modelHeliyon, 2023
- Evaluating the efficacy of AI content detection tools in differentiating between human and AI-generated textInternational Journal for Educational Integrity, 2023
- Evaluating the authenticity of ChatGPT responses: a study on text-matching capabilitiesInternational Journal for Educational Integrity, 2023
- The false positives and false negatives of generative AI detection tools in education and academic research: The case of ChatGPTThe International Journal of Management Education, 2023
- Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewersnpj Digital Medicine, 2023