搜索结果：Essays in biochemistry

Writing is a foundational literacy skill that underpins effective communication, fosters critical thinking, facilitates learning across disciplines, and enables individuals to organize and articulate complex ideas. Consequently, writing assessment plays a vital role in evaluating language proficiency, communicative effectiveness, and analytical reasoning. The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has made it increasingly easy to generate coherent, high-quality essays, raising significant concerns about the authenticity of student-submitted work. This chapter first provides an overview of the current landscape of detectors for AI-generated and AI-assisted essays, along with guidelines for their responsible use. It then presents empirical analyses to evaluate how well detectors trained on essays from one LLM generalize to identifying essays produced by other LLMs, based on essays generated in response to public GRE writing prompts. These findings provide guidance for developing and retraining detectors for practical applications.

The manual assessment and grading of student writing is a time-consuming yet critical task for teachers. Recent developments in generative AI, such as large language models, offer potential solutions to facilitate essay-scoring tasks for teachers. In our study, we evaluate the performance and reliability of both open-source and closed-source LLMs in assessing German student essays, comparing their evaluations to those of 37 teachers across 10 pre-defined criteria (i.e., plot logic, expression). A corpus of 20 real-world essays from Year 7 and 8 students was analyzed using five LLMs: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, o1, LLaMA 3-70B, and Mixtral 8x7B, aiming to provide in-depth insights into LLMs' scoring capabilities. Closed-source GPT models outperform open-source models in both internal consistency and alignment with human ratings, particularly excelling in language-related criteria. The novel o1 model outperforms all other LLMs, achieving Spearman's $r = .74$ with human assessments in the overall score, and an internal consistency of $ICC=.80$. These findings indicate that LLM-based assessment can be a useful tool to reduce teacher workload by supporting the evaluation of essays, especially with

This study addresses critical gaps in Automated Essay Scoring (AES) systems and Large Language Models (LLMs) with regard to their ability to effectively identify and score harmful essays. Despite advancements in AES technology, current models often overlook ethically and morally problematic elements within essays, erroneously assigning high scores to essays that may propagate harmful opinions. In this study, we introduce the Harmful Essay Detection (HED) benchmark, which includes essays integrating sensitive topics such as racism and gender bias, to test the efficacy of various LLMs in recognizing and scoring harmful content. Our findings reveal that: (1) LLMs require further enhancement to accurately distinguish between harmful and argumentative essays, and (2) both current AES models and LLMs fail to consider the ethical dimensions of content during scoring. The study underscores the need for developing more robust AES systems that are sensitive to the ethical implications of the content they are scoring.

In automated essay scoring (AES), recent efforts have shifted toward cross-prompt settings that score essays on unseen prompts for practical applicability. However, prior methods trained with essay-score pairs of specific prompts pose challenges in obtaining prompt-generalized essay representation. In this work, we propose a grammar-aware cross-prompt trait scoring (GAPS), which internally captures prompt-independent syntactic aspects to learn generic essay representation. We acquire grammatical error-corrected information in essays via the grammar error correction technique and design the AES model to seamlessly integrate such information. By internally referring to both the corrected and the original essays, the model can focus on generic features during training. Empirical experiments validate our method's generalizability, showing remarkable improvements in prompt-independent and grammar-related traits. Furthermore, GAPS achieves notable QWK gains in the most challenging cross-prompt scenario, highlighting its strength in evaluating unseen prompts.

The developments in Generative AI technologies have paved the way for numerous innovations in different fields. Recently, Generative AI has been proposed as a competitor to AES systems in evaluating student essays automatically. Considering the potential limitations of AI in processing idioms, this study assessed the scoring performances of Generative AI models for essays with and without idioms by incorporating insights from Corpus Linguistics and Computational Linguistics. Two equal essay lists were created from 348 student essays taken from a corpus: one with multiple idioms present in each essay and another with no idioms in essays. Three Generative AI models (ChatGPT, Gemini, and Deepseek) were asked to score all essays in both lists three times, using the same rubric used by human raters in assigning essay scores. The results revealed excellent consistency for all models, but Gemini outperformed its competitors in interrater reliability with human raters. There was also no detectable bias for any demographic group in AI assessment. For essays with multiple idioms, Gemini followed a the most similar pattern to human raters. While the models in the study demonstrated potential

Data augmentation can mitigate limited training data in machine-learning automated scoring engines for constructed response items. This study seeks to determine how well three approaches to large language model prompting produce essays that preserve the writing quality of the original essays and produce realistic text for augmenting ASE training datasets. We created simulated versions of student essays, and human raters assigned scores to them and rated the realism of the generated text. The results of the study indicate that the predict next prompting strategy produces the highest level of agreement between human raters regarding simulated essay scores, predict next and sentence strategies best preserve the rated quality of the original essay in the simulated essays, and predict next and 25 examples strategies produce the most realistic text as judged by human raters.

Essays are considered a valuable mechanism for evaluating learning outcomes in writing. Textual cohesion is an essential characteristic of a text, as it facilitates the establishment of meaning between its parts. Automatically scoring cohesion in essays presents a challenge in the field of educational artificial intelligence. The machine learning algorithms used to evaluate texts generally do not consider the individual characteristics of the instances that comprise the analysed corpus. In this meaning, item response theory can be adapted to the context of machine learning, characterising the ability, difficulty and discrimination of the models used. This work proposes and analyses the performance of a cohesion score prediction approach based on item response theory to adjust the scores generated by machine learning models. In this study, the corpus selected for the experiments consisted of the extended Essay-BR, which includes 6,563 essays in the style of the National High School Exam (ENEM), and the Brazilian Portuguese Narrative Essays, comprising 1,235 essays written by 5th to 9th grade students from public schools. We extracted 325 linguistic features and treated the problem a

Automatic Essay Scoring (AES) assigns scores to student essays, reducing the grading workload for instructors. Developing a scoring system capable of handling essays across diverse prompts is challenging due to the flexibility and diverse nature of the writing task. Existing methods typically fall into two categories: supervised feature-based approaches and large language model (LLM)-based methods. Supervised feature-based approaches often achieve higher performance but require resource-intensive training. In contrast, LLM-based methods are computationally efficient during inference but tend to suffer from lower performance. This paper combines these approaches by incorporating linguistic features into LLM-based scoring. Experimental results show that this hybrid method outperforms baseline models for both in-domain and out-of-domain writing prompts.

The dissertation consists of three essays on responsible and sustainable finance. I show that local communities should be seen as stakeholders to decisions made by corporations. In the first essay, I examine whether the imposition of fiduciary duty on municipal advisors affects bond yields and advising fees. Using a difference-in-differences analysis, I show that bond yields reduce by 9\% after the imposition of the SEC Municipal Advisor Rule. In the second essay, we analyze the impact of USD 40 billion of corporate subsidies given by U.S. local governments on their borrowing costs. We find that winning counties experience a 15 bps increase in bond yield spread as compared to the losing counties. In the third essay, we provide new evidence that the bankruptcy filing of a locally-headquartered and publicly-listed manufacturing firm imposes externalities on the local governments. Compared to matched counties with similar economic trends, municipal bond yields for affected counties increase by 10 bps within a year of the firm filing for bankruptcy. The final essay examines whether managers walk the talk on the environmental and social discussion. We train a deep-learning model on vari

AI generated content (AIGC) presents considerable challenge to educators around the world. Instructors need to be able to detect such text generated by large language models, either with the naked eye or with the help of some tools. There is also growing need to understand the lexical, syntactic and stylistic features of AIGC. To address these challenges in English language teaching, we first present ArguGPT, a balanced corpus of 4,038 argumentative essays generated by 7 GPT models in response to essay prompts from three sources: (1) in-class or homework exercises, (2) TOEFL and (3) GRE writing tasks. Machine-generated texts are paired with roughly equal number of human-written essays with three score levels matched in essay prompts. We then hire English instructors to distinguish machine essays from human ones. Results show that when first exposed to machine-generated essays, the instructors only have an accuracy of 61% in detecting them. But the number rises to 67% after one round of minimal self-training. Next, we perform linguistic analyses of these essays, which show that machines produce sentences with more complex syntactic structures while human essays tend to be lexically

Automated essay scoring (AES) systems increasingly rely on large language models, yet little is known about how architectural choices shape their performance across different essay quality levels. This paper evaluates single-agent and multi-agent LLM architectures for essay grading using the ASAP 2.0 corpus. Our multi-agent system decomposes grading into three specialist agents (Content, Structure, Language) coordinated by a Chairman Agent that implements rubric-aligned logic including veto rules and score capping. We test both architectures in zero-shot and few-shot conditions using GPT-5.1. Results show that the multi-agent system is significantly better at identifying weak essays while the single-agent system performs better on mid-range essays. Both architectures struggle with high-quality essays. Critically, few-shot calibration emerges as the dominant factor in system performance -- providing just two examples per score level improves QWK by approximately 26% for both architectures. These findings suggest architectural choice should align with specific deployment priorities, with multi-agent AI particularly suited for diagnostic screening of at-risk students, while single-age

Existing automated essay scoring (AES) has solely relied on essay text without using explanatory rationales for the scores, thereby forgoing an opportunity to capture the specific aspects evaluated by rubric indicators in a fine-grained manner. This paper introduces Rationale-based Multiple Trait Scoring (RMTS), a novel approach for multi-trait essay scoring that integrates prompt-engineering-based large language models (LLMs) with a fine-tuning-based essay scoring model using a smaller large language model (S-LLM). RMTS uses an LLM-based trait-wise rationale generation system where a separate LLM agent generates trait-specific rationales based on rubric guidelines, which the scoring model uses to accurately predict multi-trait scores. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets, including ASAP, ASAP++, and Feedback Prize, show that RMTS significantly outperforms state-of-the-art models and vanilla S-LLMs in trait-specific scoring. By assisting quantitative assessment with fine-grained qualitative rationales, RMTS enhances the trait-wise reliability, providing partial explanations about essays. The code is available at https://github.com/BBeeChu/RMTS.git.

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 th

Automated Essay Scoring automates the grading process of essays, providing a great advantage for improving the writing proficiency of students. While holistic essay scoring research is prevalent, a noticeable gap exists in scoring essays for specific quality traits. In this work, we focus on the relevance trait, which measures the ability of the student to stay on-topic throughout the entire essay. We propose a novel approach for graded relevance scoring of written essays that employs dense retrieval encoders. Dense representations of essays at different relevance levels then form clusters in the embeddings space, such that their centroids are potentially separate enough to effectively represent their relevance levels. We hence use the simple 1-Nearest-Neighbor classification over those centroids to determine the relevance level of an unseen essay. As an effective unsupervised dense encoder, we leverage Contriever, which is pre-trained with contrastive learning and demonstrated comparable performance to supervised dense retrieval models. We tested our approach on both task-specific (i.e., training and testing on same task) and cross-task (i.e., testing on unseen task) scenarios usi

We occasionally include projects in our learner-centered introductory astronomy college course to enable non-science major students explore some astronomical concepts in more detail than otherwise. Such projects also highlight ongoing or upcoming astronomical events. We hope that students will feel more interested in astronomy through projects tied to astronomical events. In Spring 2012, we offered short essays focused on eclipses, transits and occultations to promote the rare transit of Venus that occurred on June 5th, 2012. We asked students to write two short essays from three that were offered. The essays contained descriptive and conceptual parts. They were meant to serve as teaching tools. 62% of 106 essays from 55 students earned A, B or C grades. 21% of 47 feedback survey respondents felt the essays increased their interest in astronomy. 49% of respondents felt that the essays were not educationally beneficial and should not be offered again. The most common written response to our survey indicated that students need more guidance and better preparation in writing successful essays. Since students found the conceptual parts of the essays difficult, in the future we will pro

Learning argumentative writing is challenging. Besides writing fundamentals such as syntax and grammar, learners must select and arrange argument components meaningfully to create high-quality essays. To support argumentative writing computationally, one step is to mine the argumentative structure. When combined with automatic essay scoring, interactions of the argumentative structure and quality scores can be exploited for comprehensive writing support. Although studies have shown the usefulness of using information about the argumentative structure for essay scoring, no argument mining corpus with ground-truth essay quality annotations has been published yet. Moreover, none of the existing corpora contain essays written by school students specifically. To fill this research gap, we present a German corpus of 1,320 essays from school students of two age groups. Each essay has been manually annotated for argumentative structure and quality on multiple levels of granularity. We propose baseline approaches to argument mining and essay scoring, and we analyze interactions between both tasks, thereby laying the ground for quality-oriented argumentative writing support.

Biology is perhaps the most complex of the sciences, given the incredible variety of chemical species that are interconnected in spatial and temporal pathways that are daunting to understand. Their interconnections lead to emergent properties such as memory, consciousness, and recognition of self and non-self. To understand how these interconnected reactions lead to cellular life characterized by activation, inhibition, regulation, homeostasis, and adaptation, computational analyses and simulations are essential, a fact recognized by the biological communities. At the same time, students struggle to understand and apply binding and kinetic analyses for the simplest reactions such as the irreversible first-order conversion of a single reactant to a product. This likely results from cognitive difficulties in combining structural, chemical, mathematical, and textual descriptions of binding and catalytic reactions. To help students better understand dynamic reactions and their analyses, we have introduced two kinds of interactive graphs and simulations into the online educational resource, Fundamentals of Biochemistry, a multivolume biochemistry textbook that is part of the LibreText c

Automated Essay Scoring (AES) holds significant promise in the field of education, helping educators to mark larger volumes of essays and provide timely feedback. However, Arabic AES research has been limited by the lack of publicly available essay data. This study introduces AR-AES, an Arabic AES benchmark dataset comprising 2046 undergraduate essays, including gender information, scores, and transparent rubric-based evaluation guidelines, providing comprehensive insights into the scoring process. These essays come from four diverse courses, covering both traditional and online exams. Additionally, we pioneer the use of AraBERT for AES, exploring its performance on different question types. We find encouraging results, particularly for Environmental Chemistry and source-dependent essay questions. For the first time, we examine the scale of errors made by a BERT-based AES system, observing that 96.15 percent of the errors are within one point of the first human marker's prediction, on a scale of one to five, with 79.49 percent of predictions matching exactly. In contrast, additional human markers did not exceed 30 percent exact matches with the first marker, with 62.9 percent withi

Automated essay scoring (AES) is a challenging task in cross-prompt settings due to the diversity of scoring criteria. While previous studies have focused on the output of large language models (LLMs) to improve scoring accuracy, we believe activations from intermediate layers may also provide valuable information. To explore this possibility, we evaluated the discriminative power of LLMs' activations in cross-prompt essay scoring task. Specifically, we used activations to fit probes and further analyzed the effects of different models and input content of LLMs on this discriminative power. By computing the directions of essays across various trait dimensions under different prompts, we analyzed the variation in evaluation perspectives of large language models concerning essay types and traits. Results show that the activations possess strong discriminative power in evaluating essay quality and that LLMs can adapt their evaluation perspectives to different traits and essay types, effectively handling the diversity of scoring criteria in cross-prompt settings.