JongWoo Kim

JongWoo Kim, SeongYeub Chu, Bryan Wong et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently emerged as promising tools for knowledge tracing (KT) due to their strong reasoning and generalization abilities. While recent LLM-based KT methods have proposed new prompt formats, they struggle to represent the full interaction histories of example learners within a single prompt during in-context learning (ICL), resulting in limited scalability and high computational cost under token constraints. In this work, we present \textit{LLM-based Option-weighted Knowledge Tracing (LOKT)}, a simple yet effective framework that encodes the interaction histories of example learners in context as \textit{textual categorical option weights (TCOW)}. TCOW are semantic labels (e.g., ``inadequate'') assigned to the options selected by learners when answering questions, enhancing the interpretability of LLMs. Experiments on multiple-choice datasets show that LOKT outperforms existing non-LLM and LLM-based KT models in both cold-start and warm-start settings. Moreover, LOKT enables scalable and cost-efficient inference, achieving strong performance even under strict token constraints. Our code is available at \href{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LOKT_model-3233}{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LOKT\_model-3233}.

Seongyeub Chu, Jongwoo Kim, Munyong Yi

Going beyond the prediction of numerical scores, recent research in automated essay scoring has increasingly emphasized the generation of high-quality feedback that provides justification and actionable guidance. To mitigate the high cost of expert annotation, prior work has commonly relied on LLM-generated feedback to train essay assessment models. However, such feedback is often incorporated without explicit quality validation, resulting in the propagation of noise in downstream applications. To address this limitation, we propose FeedEval, an LLM-based framework for evaluating LLM-generated essay feedback along three pedagogically grounded dimensions: specificity, helpfulness, and validity. FeedEval employs dimension-specialized LLM evaluators trained on datasets curated in this study to assess multiple feedback candidates and select high-quality feedback for downstream use. Experiments on the ASAP++ benchmark show that FeedEval closely aligns with human expert judgments and that essay scoring models trained with FeedEval-filtered high-quality feedback achieve superior scoring performance. Furthermore, revision experiments using small LLMs show that the high-quality feedback identified by FeedEval leads to more effective essay revisions. We will release our code and curated datasets upon accepted.