Owen Henkel

Zachary Levonian, Chenglu Li, Wangda Zhu et al.

For middle-school math students, interactive question-answering (QA) with tutors is an effective way to learn. The flexibility and emergent capabilities of generative large language models (LLMs) has led to a surge of interest in automating portions of the tutoring process - including interactive QA to support conceptual discussion of mathematical concepts. However, LLM responses to math questions can be incorrect or mismatched to the educational context - such as being misaligned with a school's curriculum. One potential solution is retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), which involves incorporating a vetted external knowledge source in the LLM prompt to increase response quality. In this paper, we designed prompts that retrieve and use content from a high-quality open-source math textbook to generate responses to real student questions. We evaluate the efficacy of this RAG system for middle-school algebra and geometry QA by administering a multi-condition survey, finding that humans prefer responses generated using RAG, but not when responses are too grounded in the textbook content. We argue that while RAG is able to improve response quality, designers of math QA systems must consider trade-offs between generating responses preferred by students and responses closely matched to specific educational resources.

Owen Henkel, Libby Hills, Bill Roberts et al.

Open-ended questions, which require students to produce multi-word, nontrivial responses, are a popular tool for formative assessment as they provide more specific insights into what students do and don't know. However, grading open-ended questions can be time-consuming leading teachers to resort to simpler question formats or conduct fewer formative assessments. While there has been a longstanding interest in automating of short-answer grading (ASAG), but previous approaches have been technically complex, limiting their use in formative assessment contexts. The newest generation of Large Language Models (LLMs) potentially makes grading short answer questions more feasible. This paper investigates the potential for the newest version of LLMs to be used in ASAG, specifically in the grading of short answer questions for formative assessments, in two ways. First, it introduces a novel dataset of short answer reading comprehension questions, drawn from a set of reading assessments conducted with over 150 students in Ghana. This dataset allows for the evaluation of LLMs in a new context, as they are predominantly designed and trained on data from high-income North American countries. Second, the paper empirically evaluates how well various configurations of generative LLMs grade student short answer responses compared to expert human raters. The findings show that GPT-4, with minimal prompt engineering, performed extremely well on grading the novel dataset (QWK 0.92, F1 0.89), reaching near parity with expert human raters. To our knowledge this work is the first to empirically evaluate the performance of generative LLMs on short answer reading comprehension questions using real student data, with low technical hurdles to attaining this performance. These findings suggest that generative LLMs could be used to grade formative literacy assessment tasks.

Owen Henkel, Hannah Horne-Robinson, Maria Dyshel et al.

This paper introduces AMMORE, a new dataset of 53,000 math open-response question-answer pairs from Rori, a learning platform used by students in several African countries and conducts two experiments to evaluate the use of large language models (LLM) for grading particularly challenging student answers. The AMMORE dataset enables various potential analyses and provides an important resource for researching student math acquisition in understudied, real-world, educational contexts. In experiment 1 we use a variety of LLM-driven approaches, including zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought prompting, to grade the 1% of student answers that a rule-based classifier fails to grade accurately. We find that the best-performing approach -- chain-of-thought prompting -- accurately scored 92% of these edge cases, effectively boosting the overall accuracy of the grading from 98.7% to 99.9%. In experiment 2, we aim to better understand the consequential validity of the improved grading accuracy, by passing grades generated by the best-performing LLM-based approach to a Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT) model, which estimated student mastery of specific lessons. We find that relatively modest improvements in model accuracy at the individual question level can lead to significant changes in the estimation of student mastery. Where the rules-based classifier currently used to grade student, answers misclassified the mastery status of 6.9% of students across their completed lessons, using the LLM chain-of-thought approach this misclassification rate was reduced to 2.6% of students. Taken together, these findings suggest that LLMs could be a valuable tool for grading open-response questions in K-12 mathematics education, potentially enabling encouraging wider adoption of open-ended questions in formative assessment.

Owen Henkel, Hannah Horne-Robinson, Libby Hills et al.

This paper reports on a set of three recent experiments utilizing large-scale speech models to evaluate the oral reading fluency (ORF) of students in Ghana. While ORF is a well-established measure of foundational literacy, assessing it typically requires one-on-one sessions between a student and a trained evaluator, a process that is time-consuming and costly. Automating the evaluation of ORF could support better literacy instruction, particularly in education contexts where formative assessment is uncommon due to large class sizes and limited resources. To our knowledge, this research is among the first to examine the use of the most recent versions of large-scale speech models (Whisper V2 wav2vec2.0) for ORF assessment in the Global South. We find that Whisper V2 produces transcriptions of Ghanaian students reading aloud with a Word Error Rate of 13.5. This is close to the model's average WER on adult speech (12.8) and would have been considered state-of-the-art for children's speech transcription only a few years ago. We also find that when these transcriptions are used to produce fully automated ORF scores, they closely align with scores generated by expert human graders, with a correlation coefficient of 0.96. Importantly, these results were achieved on a representative dataset (i.e., students with regional accents, recordings taken in actual classrooms), using a free and publicly available speech model out of the box (i.e., no fine-tuning). This suggests that using large-scale speech models to assess ORF may be feasible to implement and scale in lower-resource, linguistically diverse educational contexts.

Owen Henkel, Adam Boxer, Libby Hills et al.

This paper presents reports on a series of experiments with a novel dataset evaluating how well Large Language Models (LLMs) can mark (i.e. grade) open text responses to short answer questions, Specifically, we explore how well different combinations of GPT version and prompt engineering strategies performed at marking real student answers to short answer across different domain areas (Science and History) and grade-levels (spanning ages 5-16) using a new, never-used-before dataset from Carousel, a quizzing platform. We found that GPT-4, with basic few-shot prompting performed well (Kappa, 0.70) and, importantly, very close to human-level performance (0.75). This research builds on prior findings that GPT-4 could reliably score short answer reading comprehension questions at a performance-level very close to that of expert human raters. The proximity to human-level performance, across a variety of subjects and grade levels suggests that LLMs could be a valuable tool for supporting low-stakes formative assessment tasks in K-12 education and has important implications for real-world education delivery.

Owen Henkel, Bill Roberts, Doug Jaffe et al.

Recent advances in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) raise the question of their potential for grading, analyzing, and offering feedback on handwritten student classwork. This capability would be particularly beneficial in elementary and middle-school mathematics education, where most work remains handwritten, because seeing students' full working of a problem provides valuable insights into their learning processes, but is extremely time-consuming to grade. We present two experiments investigating MLLM performance on handwritten student mathematics classwork. Experiment A examines 288 handwritten responses from Ghanaian middle school students solving arithmetic problems with objective answers. In this context, models achieved near-human accuracy (95%, k = 0.90) but exhibited occasional errors that human educators would be unlikely to make. Experiment B evaluates 150 mathematical illustrations from American elementary students, where the drawings are the answer to the question. These tasks lack single objective answers and require sophisticated visual interpretation as well as pedagogical judgment in order to analyze and evaluate them. We attempted to separate MLLMs' visual capabilities from their pedagogical abilities by first asking them to grade the student illustrations directly, and then by augmenting the image with a detailed human description of the illustration. We found that when the models had to analyze the student illustrations directly, they struggled, achieving only k = 0.20 with ground truth scores, but when given human descriptions, their agreement levels improved dramatically to k = 0.47, which was in line with human-to-human agreement levels. This gap suggests MLLMs can "see" and interpret arithmetic work relatively well, but still struggle to "see" student mathematical illustrations.

Owen Henkel, Libby Hills

Machine Learning models have many potentially beneficial applications in education settings, but a key barrier to their development is securing enough data to train these models. Labelling educational data has traditionally relied on highly skilled raters using complex, multi-class rubrics, making the process expensive and difficult to scale. An alternative, more scalable approach could be to use non-expert crowdworkers to evaluate student work, however, maintaining sufficiently high levels of accuracy and inter-rater reliability when using non-expert workers is challenging. This paper reports on two experiments investigating using non-expert crowdworkers and comparative judgement to evaluate complex student data. Crowdworkers were hired to evaluate student responses to open-ended reading comprehension questions. Crowdworkers were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: the control, where they were asked to decide whether answers were correct or incorrect (i.e., a categorical judgement), or the treatment, where they were shown the same question and answers, but were instead asked to decide which of two candidate answers was more correct (i.e., a comparative/preference-based judgement). We found that using comparative judgement substantially improved inter-rater reliability on both tasks. These results are in-line with well-established literature on the benefits of comparative judgement in the field of educational assessment, as well as with recent trends in artificial intelligence research, where comparative judgement is becoming the preferred method for providing human feedback on model outputs when working with non-expert crowdworkers. However, to our knowledge, these results are novel and important in demonstrating the beneficial effects of using the combination of comparative judgement and crowdworkers to evaluate educational data.