What is your opinion on using an LLM to provide immediate feedback/grading at scale such that students have to muster their own answers but can check them quickly, compressing the feedback loop and allowing for more iterations?

Students still have to muster their own answers, but the LLM is used to minimize the confusion or uncertainty about the quality of the answer and the time to wait for that clarity.

My understanding is decades of research long before AI has shown the benefit of timely constructive feedback on the learning process. Why aren't all educators tripping over themselves to use LLMs to maximize access to timely constructive feedback?

▲

Avshalom 3 days ago | parent [-]

Because LLMS don't provide access to timely constructive feedback.

▲

FloorEgg 3 days ago | parent [-]

One interpretation of your comment is "LLM chat bots don't" or more specifically "ChatGPT doesn't", but I feel like this is a straw man and not intellectually honest answer to my question.

The real crux is not grounded in chat bots default behavior but the technology's capability: "Can LLMs provide access to timely constructive feedback in specific educational contexts?". The answer to this question is definitely yes. If you think the answer is no, then my guess is you haven't made an honest effort to try, or you just want the answer to be no and aren't interested in the truth.

▲

Avshalom 3 days ago | parent [-]

>>"Can LLMs provide access to timely constructive feedback in specific educational contexts?"

"Can they" is not the same as "do they" and "specific educational contexts" is not relevant to "all educators"

Is it possible to get constructive feedback? sure, maybe. Is it possible to get a specific teacher's feedback? Not really. Is it possible to guarantee it will be productive feedback? No, especially if the student has to/gets to interact with it.

Is it likely that the reason "all educators" aren't tripping over themselves to have their students submit some number of drafts to an llm is because that's not actually a good idea? sure, probably.

	▲	FloorEgg 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Is it possible to get constructive feedback? sure, maybe. Not maybe, definitely. > it possible to get a specific teacher's feedback? Not really. Yes actually it definitely is. > Is it possible to guarantee it will be productive feedback? No, especially if the student has to/gets to interact with it. Yes it is possible to guarantee it will be productive, and far more consistently productive than what teachers can achieve. There are going to be educational contexts where LLMs can't provide productive feedback (because LLMs aren't relevant to the learning objectives). There are also many contexts where they are exceptional at producing productive feedback. Especially in grade school and qualitative undergrad courses. I am pretty sure what's happening here is you are conflating LLMs with ChatGPT and other chat interfaces. That's a bit like conflating an internal combustion engine with a tractor, and then basing your experience with tractors on an opinion that busses can't exist. Indicated by this thing you said: "No, especially if the student has to/gets to interact with it.". It seems like you haven't considered that LLMs can have any kind of guard rails or custom instructions applied to them, can be packaged or constrained in how the user interacts with them. An interface can allow a student to submit a draft, get static personalized pedagogically-optimized feedback tailored to the teachers criteria, learning objectives and reference material, without any way for the student to get any other output. I find it both funny and a little irritating how confident you are that this isn't possible, because I've seen it with my own eyes used in both graduate and undergrad contexts to great success. In a way you have answered my original query, which I am grateful for: "Why aren't all educators tripping over themselves to use LLMs to maximize access to timely constructive feedback?" You're indicating the answer is because most educators are confidently incorrect about LLM capabilities. Plausible I guess.