Inicio
todoELE
  • Inicio
  • Materiales
    • πŸ“‹ Actividades
    • πŸ“ Conjugación
    • πŸ“Š Corpus
    • πŸ“” Diccionarios
    • βœ… Evaluación
    • βš™οΈ Gramática
    • πŸ“— Manuales
    • ✍️ Ortografía
    • πŸ“… Programación
    • πŸ—£οΈ Pronunciación
    • πŸ“ Recursos
    • πŸ”€ Vocabulario
    • πŸ’» Herramientas digitales
  • Formación
    • πŸ“š Bibliografía
    • πŸ‘₯ Congresos
    • πŸŽ“ Cursos
    • 🏫 Centros
    • 🏒 Organizaciones
    • πŸ“° Revistas
    • 🌍 Atlas de ELE
  • Trabajo
    • πŸ’Ό Ofertas de trabajo
    • ℹ️ Trabajo - Recursos
  • En la red
    • 🌐 Sitios ELE
    • πŸ“° Agregador
    • πŸ“§ Formespa
  • IA
    • ✨ Nuevos contenidos
    • πŸ“š Bibliografía IA
    • 🧰 Herramientas IA
    • πŸ’¬ Prompts
    • πŸ§ͺ Experiencias IA
    • 🌐 Sitios web IA
    • πŸ“° Actualidad IA
  • Comunidad
    • πŸ“° Actualidad ELE
    • 😊 Anécdotas ELE
    • πŸ“ Blog
    • πŸ“ŒTablón de anuncios
  • Buscar

Ruta de navegación

  • Inicio
  • Bibliografia
  • Analysis of LLMs for educational question classification and generation

Sección IA: Inteligencia artificial Bibliografía

Analysis of LLMs for educational question classification and generation

Said Al Faraby
Ade Romadhony
Adiwijaya
2024
Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence
7
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a…
artículo
estudio empírico
inteligencia artificial
grandes modelos de lenguaje
ChatGPT
creación de materiales
evaluación
herramientas
tecnología educativa
IA y creación de materiales
modelos de lenguaje (LLM)
análisis de producción de IA
prompts
estudio empírico

Texto completo

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have shown promise in generating educational content, including questions. This study evaluates the effectiveness of LLMs in classifying and generating educational-type questions. We assessed ChatGPT's performance using a dataset of 4,959 user-generated questions labeled into ten categories, employing various prompting techniques and aggregating results with a voting method to enhance robustness. Additionally, we evaluated ChatGPT's accuracy in generating type-specific questions from 100 reading sections sourced from five online textbooks, which were manually reviewed by human evaluators. We also generated questions based on learning objectives and compared their quality to those crafted by human experts, with evaluations by experts and crowdsourced participants.Our findings reveal that ChatGPT achieved a macro-average F1-score of 0.57 in zero-shot classification, improving to 0.70 when combined with a Random Forest classifier using embeddings. The most effective prompting technique was zero-shot with added definitions, while few-shot and few-shot + Chain of Thought approaches underperformed. The voting method enhanced robustness in classification. In generating type-specific questions, ChatGPT's accuracy was lower than anticipated. However, quality differences between ChatGPT-generated and human-generated questions were not statistically significant, indicating ChatGPT's potential for educational content creation. This study underscores the transformative potential of LLMs in educational practices. By effectively classifying and generating high-quality educational questions, LLMs can reduce the workload on educators and enable personalized learning experiences.

Texto completo en abierto (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
  • Inicie sesión para enviar comentarios

Enviar publicación

Contenidos relacionados

  • Investigating the affordances of OpenAI's large language model in developing listening assessments
  • Análisis de textos generados por ChatGPT para la enseñanza del español: complejidad y adecuación a niveles de competencia
  • Applying large language models and chain-of-thought for automatic scoring
  • Evaluating the psychometric properties of ChatGPT-generated questions
  • Assessing the proficiency of large language models in automatic feedback generation: An evaluation study
  • How do LLMs perform in the context of MCQs across different levels of thinking skills in a business education course at higher education? A comparison of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot
Sobre Todoele Índice Publica Contacto: todoele@gmail.com
Política de privacidad Créditos