Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2501.06461

Assessing instructor-AI cooperation for grading essay-type questions in an introductory sociology course

Francisco Olivos·Tobias Kamelski·Sebastián Ascui-Gac
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This study explores the use of artificial intelligence (AI) as a complementary tool for grading essay-type questions in higher education, focusing on its consistency with human grading and potential to reduce biases. Using 70 handwritten exams from an introductory sociology course, we evaluated generative pre-trained transformers (GPT) models' performance in transcribing and scoring students' responses. GPT models were tested under various settings for both transcription and grading tasks. Results show high similarity between human and GPT transcriptions, with GPT-4o-mini outperforming GPT-4o in accuracy. For grading, GPT demonstrated strong correlations with the human grader scores, especially when template answers were provided. However, discrepancies remained, highlighting GPT's role as a "second grader" to flag inconsistencies for assessment reviewing rather than fully replace human evaluation. This study contributes to the growing literature on AI in education, demonstrating its potential to enhance fairness and efficiency in grading essay-type questions.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Francisco Olivos, Tobias Kamelski, Sebastián Ascui-Gac. 2025-01-11. Assessing instructor-AI cooperation for grading essay-type questions in an introductory sociology course. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.06461

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

STRUCTUREDAGENT: Planning with AND/OR Trees for Long-Horizon Web Tasks

Existing LLM-based web agents struggle on complex, long-horizon tasks due to limited in-context memory, weak planning abilities, and greedy behaviors that lead to premature termination. To address these challenges, we propose \SA{}, a hierarchical planning framework that interleaves planning and execution via dynamic $\ANDOR$ trees. The framework separates structural planning from LLM-based reasoning, enabling principled error recovery through node repair, systematic exploration of alternatives via OR nodes, and modular plans that can facilitate human intervention. On WebArena (630 tasks), \SA{} achieves a $\sim$53\% success rate vs.\ $\sim$46\% for AgentOccam, and on complex multi-constraint Amazon shopping tasks, gains reach 10\% over the strongest baseline.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Can Generalist Agents Automate Data Curation?

Curating training data is among the most consequential yet labor-intensive parts of modern AI development: practitioners iteratively propose, implement, evaluate, and revise data policies against noisy benchmark feedback. We ask whether generalist coding agents can automate this data-curation loop. We introduce *Curation-Bench*, an agent-centric benchmark that fixes the model, training recipe, and evaluation suite while giving agents command-line access to inspect data, implement policies, submit them to a fixed training/evaluation pipeline, and revise. In a vision-language instruction-tuning instantiation, out-of-the-box agents reach strong published data-selection baselines within ten iterations. However, trajectory analysis reveals a persistent *execution-research gap*: agents mainly tune local policy variants rather than explore new policy families, even when given strategy guides and paper references. Scaffolds requiring each iteration to cite, instantiate, and adapt a prior method shift agents toward method-guided exploration. The scaffolded agent autonomously composes -- without human design input -- a data-selection policy that outperforms strong published baselines at one-tenth their data budget. Overall, current agents can run the curation loop, but reliable data research requires scaffolded method adaptation, not open-ended prompting alone. Code and benchmark are open-sourced.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Self-Organizing Agent Teams Learn to Reason Together

Collective intelligence depends not only on what team members know, but also on how they organize their work. When the structure of a solution is unknown, useful roles and divisions of labor cannot be specified in advance; teams must learn from experience how to organize reasoning as it unfolds. Human teams routinely adapt this way, while existing AI agent teams rely on fixed protocols, explicit task decomposition, or routing. We introduce Self-Organizing Agent Teams (SAT), fixed teams of AI agents that learn reusable strategies from prior collaborations to organize roles, conversational phases, participation, and information flow. These strategies enable what we call collaborative computation: agents exchange, challenge, repair, and synthesize partial reasoning into solutions no member produced independently. In two independent settings, we learn teamwork strategies that transfer unchanged to unseen benchmarks, using only 15 mathematics and 25 graduate-level knowledge problems. Across five mathematics and physics benchmarks, self-organizing teams average 66.7% accuracy, versus 48.8% for their strongest member, 58.7% for compute-matched inference by that agent, and 59.0% for a perfect router over members' independent answers; on AIME 2026, they exceed this router by 13.4 points. Because gains vary across benchmarks, we ask when self-organizing collaboration helps. Across eight benchmarks, demonstrability (the organizational-psychology construct of whether a team can distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning) strongly tracks improvement over the strongest member (Spearman $ρ=0.90$, $p=0.005$): teams benefit most when correct reasoning can be recognized once it appears. More broadly, these results suggest that organization itself can become an agent capability: agent teams can learn how to reason together and produce solutions their members could not reach independently.

cs.AI↗