G. Alex Ambrose

Xiuxiu Tang, G. Alex Ambrose, Ying Cheng

Student responses in STEM assessments are often handwritten and combine symbolic expressions, calculations, and diagrams, creating substantial variation in format and interpretation. Despite their importance for evaluating students' reasoning, such responses are time-consuming to score and prone to rater inconsistency, particularly when partial credit is required. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have increased attention to AI-assisted scoring, yet evidence remains limited regarding how rubric design and LLM configurations influence reliability across performance levels. This study examined the reliability of AI-assisted scoring of undergraduate physics constructed responses using GPT-4o. Twenty authentic handwritten exam responses were scored across two rounds by four instructors and by the AI model using skill-based rubrics with differing levels of analytic granularity. Prompting format and temperature settings were systematically varied. Overall, human-AI agreement on total scores was comparable to human inter-rater reliability and was highest for high- and low-performing responses, but declined for mid-level responses involving partial or ambiguous reasoning. Criterion-level analyses showed stronger alignment for clearly defined conceptual skills than for extended procedural judgments. A more fine-grained, checklist-based rubric improved consistency relative to holistic scoring. These findings indicate that reliable AI-assisted scoring depends primarily on clear, well-structured rubrics, while prompting format plays a secondary role and temperature has relatively limited impact. More broadly, the study provides transferable design recommendations for implementing reliable LLM-assisted scoring in STEM contexts through skill-based rubrics and controlled LLM settings.

Si Chen, Izzy Molnar, Ting Hua et al.

High-quality, multi-turn instructional dialogues between novices and experts are essential for developing AI systems that support teaching, learning, and decision-making. These dialogues often involve scaffolding -- the process by which an expert supports a novice's thinking through questions, feedback, and step-by-step guidance. However, such data are scarce due to privacy concerns in recording and the vulnerability inherent in help-seeking. We present SimInstruct, a scalable, expert-in-the-loop tool for collecting scaffolding dialogues. Using teaching development coaching as an example domain, SimInstruct simulates novice instructors via LLMs, varying their teaching challenges and LLM's persona traits, while human experts provide multi-turn feedback, reasoning, and instructional support. This design enables the creation of realistic, pedagogically rich dialogues without requiring real novice participants. Our results reveal that persona traits, such as extroversion and introversion, meaningfully influence how experts engage. Compared to real mentoring recordings, SimInstruct dialogues demonstrate comparable pedagogical relevance and cognitive depth. Experts also reported the process as engaging and reflective, improving both data quality and their own professional insight. We further fine-tuned a LLaMA model to be an expert model using the augmented dataset, which outperformed GPT-4o in instructional quality. Our analysis highlights GPT-4o's limitations in weak reflective questioning, overuse of generic praise, a condescending tone, and a tendency to overwhelm novices with excessive suggestions.