比较 ChatGPT 与教育工作者在小学生英语和希腊语短文中的修改和反馈意见

IF 4.8 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Education and Information Technologies Pub Date : 2024-07-27 DOI:10.1007/s10639-024-12912-8
Emmanuel Fokides, Eirini Peristeraki
{"title":"比较 ChatGPT 与教育工作者在小学生英语和希腊语短文中的修改和反馈意见","authors":"Emmanuel Fokides, Eirini Peristeraki","doi":"10.1007/s10639-024-12912-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This research analyzed the efficacy of ChatGPT as a tool for the correction and provision of feedback on primary school students' short essays written in both the English and Greek languages. The accuracy and qualitative aspects of ChatGPT-generated corrections and feedback were compared to that of educators. For the essays written in English, it was found that ChatGPT outperformed the educators both in terms of quantity and quality. It detected more mistakes, provided more detailed feedback, its focus was similar to that of educators, its orientation was more balanced, and it was more positive although more academic/formal in terms of style/tone. For the essays written in Greek, ChatGPT did not perform as well as educators did. Although it provided more detailed feedback and detected roughly the same number of mistakes, it incorrectly flagged as mistakes correctly written words and/or phrases. Moreover, compared to educators, it focused less on language mechanics and delivered less balanced feedback in terms of orientation. In terms of style/tone, there were no significant differences. When comparing ChatGPT's performance in English and Greek short essays, it was found that it performed better in the former language in both the quantitative and qualitative parameters that were examined. The implications of the above findings are also discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":51494,"journal":{"name":"Education and Information Technologies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing ChatGPT's correction and feedback comments with that of educators in the context of primary students' short essays written in English and Greek\",\"authors\":\"Emmanuel Fokides, Eirini Peristeraki\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10639-024-12912-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This research analyzed the efficacy of ChatGPT as a tool for the correction and provision of feedback on primary school students' short essays written in both the English and Greek languages. The accuracy and qualitative aspects of ChatGPT-generated corrections and feedback were compared to that of educators. For the essays written in English, it was found that ChatGPT outperformed the educators both in terms of quantity and quality. It detected more mistakes, provided more detailed feedback, its focus was similar to that of educators, its orientation was more balanced, and it was more positive although more academic/formal in terms of style/tone. For the essays written in Greek, ChatGPT did not perform as well as educators did. Although it provided more detailed feedback and detected roughly the same number of mistakes, it incorrectly flagged as mistakes correctly written words and/or phrases. Moreover, compared to educators, it focused less on language mechanics and delivered less balanced feedback in terms of orientation. In terms of style/tone, there were no significant differences. When comparing ChatGPT's performance in English and Greek short essays, it was found that it performed better in the former language in both the quantitative and qualitative parameters that were examined. The implications of the above findings are also discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51494,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Education and Information Technologies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Education and Information Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12912-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education and Information Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12912-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究分析了 ChatGPT 作为小学生英语和希腊语短文批改和反馈工具的功效。将 ChatGPT 生成的批改和反馈的准确性和质量方面与教育工作者的批改和反馈进行了比较。结果发现,对于英语作文,ChatGPT 在数量和质量上都优于教育工作者。它发现了更多的错误,提供了更详细的反馈,其关注点与教育者相似,其导向更平衡,虽然在风格/语气上更学术/正式,但更积极。在希腊文作文方面,ChatGPT 的表现不如教育工作者。虽然它提供了更详细的反馈,发现的错误数量也大致相同,但它错误地将正确书写的单词和/或短语标记为错误。此外,与教育工作者相比,它较少关注语言机制,提供的反馈在方向上也不够平衡。在风格/语气方面,两者没有明显差异。在比较 ChatGPT 在英语和希腊语短文中的表现时发现,在定量和定性参数方面,ChatGPT 在希腊语中的表现都更好。我们还讨论了上述发现的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing ChatGPT's correction and feedback comments with that of educators in the context of primary students' short essays written in English and Greek

This research analyzed the efficacy of ChatGPT as a tool for the correction and provision of feedback on primary school students' short essays written in both the English and Greek languages. The accuracy and qualitative aspects of ChatGPT-generated corrections and feedback were compared to that of educators. For the essays written in English, it was found that ChatGPT outperformed the educators both in terms of quantity and quality. It detected more mistakes, provided more detailed feedback, its focus was similar to that of educators, its orientation was more balanced, and it was more positive although more academic/formal in terms of style/tone. For the essays written in Greek, ChatGPT did not perform as well as educators did. Although it provided more detailed feedback and detected roughly the same number of mistakes, it incorrectly flagged as mistakes correctly written words and/or phrases. Moreover, compared to educators, it focused less on language mechanics and delivered less balanced feedback in terms of orientation. In terms of style/tone, there were no significant differences. When comparing ChatGPT's performance in English and Greek short essays, it was found that it performed better in the former language in both the quantitative and qualitative parameters that were examined. The implications of the above findings are also discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Education and Information Technologies
Education and Information Technologies EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
12.70%
发文量
610
期刊介绍: The Journal of Education and Information Technologies (EAIT) is a platform for the range of debates and issues in the field of Computing Education as well as the many uses of information and communication technology (ICT) across many educational subjects and sectors. It probes the use of computing to improve education and learning in a variety of settings, platforms and environments. The journal aims to provide perspectives at all levels, from the micro level of specific pedagogical approaches in Computing Education and applications or instances of use in classrooms, to macro concerns of national policies and major projects; from pre-school classes to adults in tertiary institutions; from teachers and administrators to researchers and designers; from institutions to online and lifelong learning. The journal is embedded in the research and practice of professionals within the contemporary global context and its breadth and scope encourage debate on fundamental issues at all levels and from different research paradigms and learning theories. The journal does not proselytize on behalf of the technologies (whether they be mobile, desktop, interactive, virtual, games-based or learning management systems) but rather provokes debate on all the complex relationships within and between computing and education, whether they are in informal or formal settings. It probes state of the art technologies in Computing Education and it also considers the design and evaluation of digital educational artefacts.  The journal aims to maintain and expand its international standing by careful selection on merit of the papers submitted, thus providing a credible ongoing forum for debate and scholarly discourse. Special Issues are occasionally published to cover particular issues in depth. EAIT invites readers to submit papers that draw inferences, probe theory and create new knowledge that informs practice, policy and scholarship. Readers are also invited to comment and reflect upon the argument and opinions published. EAIT is the official journal of the Technical Committee on Education of the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) in partnership with UNESCO.
期刊最新文献
Impact of AIoT education program on digital and AI literacy of elementary school students The predictive relationships between children's digital game addiction tendencies and mothers' digital parenting awareness and digital literacy levels Future metaverse-based education to promote daily living activities in learners with autism using immersive technologies E-learning preparedness of nursing students at Kamuzu University of Health Sciences in Malawi Using video modelling to teach motor knowledge in a physical education context: A morning-afternoon differences investigation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1