Few-Shot Question Generation for Personalized Feedback in Intelligent Tutoring Systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing work on generating hints in Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) focuses mostly on manual and non-personalized feedback. In this work, we explore automatically generated questions as personalized feedback in an ITS. Our personalized feedback can pinpoint correct and incorrect or missing phrases in student answers as well as guide them towards correct answer by asking a question in natural language. Our approach combines cause–effect analysis to break down student answers using text similarity-based NLP Transformer models to identify correct and incorrect or missing parts. We train a few-shot Neural Question Generation and Question Re-ranking models to show questions addressing components missing in the student’s answers which steers students towards the correct answer. Our model vastly outperforms both simple and strong baselines in terms of student learning gains by 45% and 35% respectively when tested in a real dialogue-based ITS. Finally, we show that our personalized corrective feedback system has the potential to improve Generative Question Answering systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it