ChatGPT: A reliable assistant for the evaluation of students’ written texts?
There is growing interest in the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to assist in various educational tasks, including writing assessment. However, the comparative efficacy of human and AI-powered systems in this domain remains a subject of ongoing exploration. This study aimed to compare the...
Lưu vào:
| Tác giả chính: | , |
|---|---|
| Định dạng: | Sách |
| Ngôn ngữ: | English |
| Nhà xuất bản: |
2025
|
| Chủ đề: | |
| Truy cập trực tuyến: | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-025-13553-1 https://dlib.phenikaa-uni.edu.vn/handle/PNK/11836 |
| Từ khóa: |
Thêm từ khóa
Không có từ khóa, Hãy là người đầu tiên đánh dấu biểu ghi này!
|
| id |
oai:localhost:PNK-11836 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
oai:localhost:PNK-118362025-04-27T03:01:45Z ChatGPT: A reliable assistant for the evaluation of students’ written texts? Atasoy, Arzu Nezhad Arani, Saieed Moslemi Assessing writing ChatGPT There is growing interest in the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to assist in various educational tasks, including writing assessment. However, the comparative efficacy of human and AI-powered systems in this domain remains a subject of ongoing exploration. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of human raters (teachers and pre-service teachers) and AI systems (ChatGPT and trained ChatGPT) in classifying written texts. The study employed both chi-square tests and logistic regression analysis to examine the relationship between rater groups (human vs. machine) and the accuracy of text classification. Initial chi-square analyses suggested no significant differences in classification accuracy between human and AI raters. However, the logistic regression model revealed a significant relationship, with human raters demonstrating a higher rate of correct classification compared to their AI counterparts. The logistic model achieved an 81.3% success rate in predicting correct classifications. While AI systems show promise in automated text processing, human raters currently demonstrate superior accuracy in writing assessment tasks. These findings highlight the need for further research into the strengths and limitations of both human and AI-based approaches. The integration of AI in educational assessment should focus on complementing and supporting, rather than replacing, the expertise of human educators. 2025-04-27T03:01:45Z 2025-04-27T03:01:45Z 2025 Book https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-025-13553-1 https://dlib.phenikaa-uni.edu.vn/handle/PNK/11836 en application/pdf |
| institution |
Digital Phenikaa |
| collection |
Digital Phenikaa |
| language |
English |
| topic |
Assessing writing ChatGPT |
| spellingShingle |
Assessing writing ChatGPT Atasoy, Arzu Nezhad Arani, Saieed Moslemi ChatGPT: A reliable assistant for the evaluation of students’ written texts? |
| description |
There is growing interest in the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to assist in various educational tasks, including writing assessment. However, the comparative efficacy of human and AI-powered systems in this domain remains a subject of ongoing exploration. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of human raters (teachers and pre-service teachers) and AI systems (ChatGPT and trained ChatGPT) in classifying written texts. The study employed both chi-square tests and logistic regression analysis to examine the relationship between rater groups (human vs. machine) and the accuracy of text classification. Initial chi-square analyses suggested no significant differences in classification accuracy between human and AI raters. However, the logistic regression model revealed a significant relationship, with human raters demonstrating a higher rate of correct classification compared to their AI counterparts. The logistic model achieved an 81.3% success rate in predicting correct classifications. While AI systems show promise in automated text processing, human raters currently demonstrate superior accuracy in writing assessment tasks. These findings highlight the need for further research into the strengths and limitations of both human and AI-based approaches. The integration of AI in educational assessment should focus on complementing and supporting, rather than replacing, the expertise of human educators. |
| format |
Book |
| author |
Atasoy, Arzu Nezhad Arani, Saieed Moslemi |
| author_facet |
Atasoy, Arzu Nezhad Arani, Saieed Moslemi |
| author_sort |
Atasoy, Arzu |
| title |
ChatGPT: A reliable assistant for the evaluation of students’ written texts? |
| title_short |
ChatGPT: A reliable assistant for the evaluation of students’ written texts? |
| title_full |
ChatGPT: A reliable assistant for the evaluation of students’ written texts? |
| title_fullStr |
ChatGPT: A reliable assistant for the evaluation of students’ written texts? |
| title_full_unstemmed |
ChatGPT: A reliable assistant for the evaluation of students’ written texts? |
| title_sort |
chatgpt: a reliable assistant for the evaluation of students’ written texts? |
| publishDate |
2025 |
| url |
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-025-13553-1 https://dlib.phenikaa-uni.edu.vn/handle/PNK/11836 |
| _version_ |
1830585004336349184 |
| score |
8.893527 |