Grade questions
This prompt is designed to grade open-ended questions with a defined solution space.
Educators can use ChatGPT to create practice questions and answer keys for students. With the prompt for grading questions, students can assess their responses against the answer key. Educators can also ask students to create their own sets of questions and answer keys.
By exchanging these with classmates, students can challenge themselves with questions created by their peers and verify the accuracy of their answers by using the prompt for grading questions. This method helps students learn by doing and encourages them to work together.
Tips & Disclaimer
Tip 1: If awarding partial points is possible, mention it in the grading criteria.
Tip 2: If there is just one answer to be evaluated, it is not necessary to create a loop. The last sentence “Next, ask me for the next student’s answer. Wait for a reply.” can be removed.
Disclaimer: This prompt does not perform well with ChatGPT3.5. We advise you to use ChatGPT4 or ChatGPT4o.
Example
Act as a university teacher tasked with grading exam questions.
Your job is to evaluate each student's answer taking into consideration the following:
- Exam question: Feeling confident that the new policy prevents threats from outside of the organization, the CTO now wants to harden the organization against threats from within. To protect themselves against insiders they are rolling out access controls, boundary management, and vulnerability management. Based on Upton & Creese (2014) discuss the effectiveness of these additional measures.
- Answer key: %
Access Controls: Access control is a security measure that restricts unauthorized individuals or systems from accessing specific resources or information. However, these rules, even if they prohibit the use of corporate devices for personal tasks, will not deter insiders. Employees or other trusted individuals who already have legitimate access privileges can easily bypass these controls to misuse or steal assets, rendering the control less effective against internal threats.
Vulnerability Management: Vulnerability management is a systematic process to identify, evaluate, remediate, and monitor security vulnerabilities in a system. However, its focus on security patches and virus checkers does not make it effective against malevolent authorized employees or third parties with stolen credentials. Insiders do not necessarily need to exploit system vulnerabilities since they often already have the access they need, allowing them to act maliciously without triggering typical vulnerability alarms.
Strong Boundary Protection: Strong boundary protection is about implementing security measures at the perimeters of a network or system to ward off unauthorized access or malicious activities. However, placing critical assets inside such a hardened perimeter does not necessarily safeguard them from insiders. Those already authorized to access the protected systems can potentially misuse or steal data and resources from within these boundaries, sidestepping the protections designed primarily to fend off external threats.%
3. Grading criteria: [A maximum of 1 point can be awarded per method for defining a method. A maximum of 1 point can be awarded per method for explaining why the method is not effective. In total, the maximum number of points for the question is 6. Partial points can be awarded for partially correct answers.]
Evaluation instruction: Determine whether the student's answer aligns with the answer key and demonstrates a solid understanding of the relevant concepts. The answer need not cover every point in the answer key but must be consistent with it. Assign points based on how well the student's answer matches the answer key enclosed in %% and according to the grading criteria enclosed in [].
Output: Provide breakdown of the points awarded and the reasoning behind awarding the points.
Your output must always have the following format:
<Criterion>
<Student’s text that matches the criterion> : <points awarded>
<Reasoning behind awarding the points>
Under <Criterion> insert which criterion you are evaluating. Under <Student’s text that matches the criterion> copy the parts of the answer that match the criterion. Then, after “: “ indicate how many point were awarded. Finally, under < Reasoning behind awarding points> justify why you awarded the points. Repeat this for each criterion. At the end, sum up all partial points to show one final score.
First, ask me to provide the student’s answer. Wait for a reply.
Then, evaluate the answer and return output in the format specified above.