Comparative Analysis of GPT-4 and Human Graders in Evaluating Praise Given to Students in Synthetic Dialogues

Abstract

Research suggests that providing specific and timely feedback to human tutors enhances their performance. However, it presents challenges due to the time-consuming nature of assessing tutor performance by human evaluators. Large language models, such as the AI-chatbot ChatGPT, hold potential for offering constructive feedback to tutors in practical settings. Nevertheless, the accuracy of AI-generated feedback remains uncertain, with scant research investigating the ability of models like ChatGPT to deliver effective feedback. In this work-in-progress, we evaluate 30 dialogues generated by GPT-4 in a tutor-student setting. We use two different prompting approaches, the zero-shot chain of thought and the few-shot chain of thought, to identify specific components of effective praise based on five criteria. These approaches are then compared to the results of human graders for accuracy. Our goal is to assess the extent to which GPT-4 can accurately identify each praise criterion. We found that both zero-shot and few-shot chain of thought approaches yield comparable results. GPT-4 performs moderately well in identifying instances when the tutor offers specific and immediate praise. However, GPT-4 underperforms in identifying the tutor’s ability to deliver sincere praise, particularly in the zero-shot prompting scenario where examples of sincere tutor praise statements were not provided. Future work will focus on enhancing prompt engineering, developing a more general tutoring rubric, and evaluating our method using real-life tutoring dialogues.