Anindita Kundu

Anindita Kundu, Denilson Barbosa

We evaluate the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in assessing essay quality, focusing on their alignment with human grading. More precisely, we evaluate ChatGPT and Llama in the Automated Essay Scoring (AES) task, a crucial natural language processing (NLP) application in Education. We consider both zero-shot and few-shot learning and different prompting approaches. We compare the numeric grade provided by the LLMs to human rater-provided scores utilizing the ASAP dataset, a well-known benchmark for the AES task. Our research reveals that both LLMs generally assign lower scores compared to those provided by the human raters; moreover, those scores do not correlate well with those provided by the humans. In particular, ChatGPT tends to be harsher and further misaligned with human evaluations than Llama. We also experiment with a number of essay features commonly used by previous AES methods, related to length, usage of connectives and transition words, and readability metrics, including the number of spelling and grammar mistakes. We find that, generally, none of these features correlates strongly with human or LLM scores. Finally, we report results on Llama 3, which are generally better across the board, as expected. Overall, while LLMs do not seem an adequate replacement for human grading, our results are somewhat encouraging for their use as a tool to assist humans in the grading of written essays in the future.

Jerin George Mathew, Sumayya Taher, Anindita Kundu et al.

Large language models have recently been proposed as tools for automated essay scoring, but their agreement with human grading remains unclear. In this work, we evaluate how LLM-generated scores compare with human grades and analyze the grading behavior of several models from the GPT and Llama families in an out-of-the-box setting, without task-specific training. Our results show that agreement between LLM and human scores remains relatively weak and varies with essay characteristics. In particular, compared to human raters, LLMs tend to assign higher scores to short or underdeveloped essays, while assigning lower scores to longer essays that contain minor grammatical or spelling errors. We also find that the scores generated by LLMs are generally consistent with the feedback they generate: essays receiving more praise tend to receive higher scores, while essays receiving more criticism tend to receive lower scores. These results suggest that LLM-generated scores and feedback follow coherent patterns but rely on signals that differ from those used by human raters, resulting in limited alignment with human grading practices. Nevertheless, our work shows that LLMs produce feedback that is consistent with their grading and that they can be reliably used in supporting essay scoring.