REVIEW 1 cited by
Using GPT-4 to Augment Unbalanced Data for Automatic Scoring
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Machine learning-based automatic scoring faces challenges with unbalanced student responses across scoring categories. To address this, we introduce a novel text data augmentation framework leveraging GPT-4, a generative large language model, specifically tailored for unbalanced datasets in automatic scoring. Our experimental dataset comprised student written responses to four science items. We crafted prompts for GPT-4 to generate responses, especially for minority scoring classes, enhancing the data set. We then finetuned DistillBERT for automatic scoring based on the augmented and original datasets. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 metrics. Our findings revealed that incorporating GPT-4-augmented data remarkedly improved model performance, particularly for precision and F1 scores. Interestingly, the extent of improvement varied depending on the specific dataset and the proportion of augmented data used. Notably, we found that a varying amount of augmented data (20%-40%) was needed to obtain stable improvement for automatic scoring. Comparisons with models trained on additional student-written responses suggest that GPT-4 augmented models match those trained with student data. This research underscores the potential and effectiveness of data augmentation techniques utilizing generative large language models like GPT-4 in addressing unbalanced datasets within automated assessment.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Using Large Language Models to Assess Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge
In video-based teacher knowledge assessments, GPT-4 scoring was more lenient than both human raters and a supervised ML model, while rater-related factors dominated construct-irrelevant variance.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.