Comparing Zero-Shot Large Language Model Prompting with Human Coding of Theory Concepts in Student Essays

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Comparing Zero-Shot Large Language Model Prompting with Human Coding of Theory Concepts in Student Essays
Language: English
Authors: Shelley Keith, Philip I. Pavlik, Kristen L. Stives, Laura Jean Kerr
Source: Journal of Educational Data Mining. 2026 18(1):286-317.
Availability: International Educational Data Mining. e-mail: jedm.editor@gmail.com; Web site: https://jedm.educationaldatamining.org/index.php/JEDM
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 32
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Artificial Intelligence, Natural Language Processing, Prompting, Writing Evaluation, Essays, Scoring, Automation, Computer Assisted Testing, Coding, Accuracy, College Students, Error Patterns, Bias, Criminology, Required Courses, Majors (Students), Computation, Correlation
ISSN: 2157-2100
Abstract: Recent studies have explored the cost and time benefits of using artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), in coding student essays. While these models show promise, not enough is understood about the factors that affect how their qualitative coding performance compares to human coding. This study examines coding accuracy for content errors in college student essays on criminological theories by comparing human-coded results with outputs from four LLMs. We evaluated human-AI correlations, AI error, and AI bias across four LLMs, five prompt types, three theory content coding dimensions, and four criminological theories. Results indicate that LLM choice significantly influenced human-AI correspondence, with Claude Sonnet 4 exhibiting the best overall performance and GPT 4.1 Mini the worst. Prompt type had minimal impact on performance. Across models, error rates were lowest when identifying whether students listed a concept, and highest when assessing whether definitions were correct. LLMs performed better on concise theories than on more complex ones.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1506614
Database: ERIC
Be the first to leave a comment!
You must be logged in first