Transitional terms give writers the opportunity to prepare readers for a new idea, connecting the previous sentence to the next one.
Many transitional words are nearly synonymous: words that broadly indicate that “this follows logically from the preceding” include accordingly, therefore, and consequently . Words that mean “in addition to” include moreover, besides, and further . Words that mean “contrary to what was just stated” include however, nevertheless , and nonetheless .
as a result : THEREFORE : CONSEQUENTLY
The executive’s flight was delayed and they accordingly arrived late.
in or by way of addition : FURTHERMORE
The mountain has many marked hiking trails; additionally, there are several unmarked trails that lead to the summit.
at a later or succeeding time : SUBSEQUENTLY, THEREAFTER
Afterward, she got a promotion.
even though : ALTHOUGH
She appeared as a guest star on the show, albeit briefly.
in spite of the fact that : even though —used when making a statement that differs from or contrasts with a statement you have just made
They are good friends, although they don't see each other very often.
in addition to what has been said : MOREOVER, FURTHERMORE
I can't go, and besides, I wouldn't go if I could.
as a result : in view of the foregoing : ACCORDINGLY
The words are often confused and are consequently misused.
in a contrasting or opposite way —used to introduce a statement that contrasts with a previous statement or presents a differing interpretation or possibility
Large objects appear to be closer. Conversely, small objects seem farther away.
used to introduce a statement that is somehow different from what has just been said
These problems are not as bad as they were. Even so, there is much more work to be done.
used as a stronger way to say "though" or "although"
I'm planning to go even though it may rain.
in addition : MOREOVER
I had some money to invest, and, further, I realized that the risk was small.
in addition to what precedes : BESIDES —used to introduce a statement that supports or adds to a previous statement
These findings seem plausible. Furthermore, several studies have confirmed them.
because of a preceding fact or premise : for this reason : THEREFORE
He was a newcomer and hence had no close friends here.
from this point on : starting now
She announced that henceforth she would be running the company.
in spite of that : on the other hand —used when you are saying something that is different from or contrasts with a previous statement
I'd like to go; however, I'd better not.
as something more : BESIDES —used for adding information to a statement
The city has the largest population in the country and in addition is a major shipping port.
all things considered : as a matter of fact —used when making a statement that adds to or strengthens a previous statement
He likes to have things his own way; indeed, he can be very stubborn.
for fear that —often used after an expression denoting fear or apprehension
He was concerned lest anyone think that he was guilty.
in addition : ALSO —often used to introduce a statement that adds to and is related to a previous statement
She is an acclaimed painter who is likewise a sculptor.
at or during the same time : in the meantime
You can set the table. Meanwhile, I'll start making dinner.
BESIDES, FURTHER : in addition to what has been said —used to introduce a statement that supports or adds to a previous statement
It probably wouldn't work. Moreover, it would be very expensive to try it.
in spite of that : HOWEVER
It was a predictable, but nevertheless funny, story.
in spite of what has just been said : NEVERTHELESS
The hike was difficult, but fun nonetheless.
without being prevented by (something) : despite—used to say that something happens or is true even though there is something that might prevent it from happening or being true
Notwithstanding their youth and inexperience, the team won the championship.
if not : or else
Finish your dinner. Otherwise, you won't get any dessert.
more correctly speaking —used to introduce a statement that corrects what you have just said
We can take the car, or rather, the van.
in spite of that —used to say that something happens or is true even though there is something that might prevent it from happening or being true
I tried again and still I failed.
by that : by that means
He signed the contract, thereby forfeiting his right to the property.
for that reason : because of that
This tablet is thin and light and therefore very convenient to carry around.
immediately after that
The committee reviewed the documents and thereupon decided to accept the proposal.
because of this or that : HENCE, CONSEQUENTLY
This detergent is highly concentrated and thus you will need to dilute it.
while on the contrary —used to make a statement that describes how two people, groups, etc., are different
Some of these species have flourished, whereas others have struggled.
NEVERTHELESS, HOWEVER —used to introduce a statement that adds something to a previous statement and usually contrasts with it in some way
It was pouring rain out, yet his clothes didn’t seem very wet.
See Definitions and Examples »
Get Word of the Day daily email!
Prepositions, ending a sentence with, is 'irregardless' a real word, 8 more grammar terms you used to know: special verb edition, point of view: it's personal, fun funner funnest, grammar & usage, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), the difference between 'i.e.' and 'e.g.', plural and possessive names: a guide, 31 useful rhetorical devices, pilfer: how to play and win, 8 words with fascinating histories, flower etymologies for your spring garden, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat.
BMC Medical Education volume 24 , Article number: 962 ( 2024 ) Cite this article
1 Altmetric
Metrics details
This study aimed to answer the research question: How reliable is ChatGPT in automated essay scoring (AES) for oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) examinations for dental undergraduate students compared to human assessors?
Sixty-nine undergraduate dental students participated in a closed-book examination comprising two essays at the National University of Singapore. Using pre-created assessment rubrics, three assessors independently performed manual essay scoring, while one separate assessor performed AES using ChatGPT (GPT-4). Data analyses were performed using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Cronbach's α to evaluate the reliability and inter-rater agreement of the test scores among all assessors. The mean scores of manual versus automated scoring were evaluated for similarity and correlations.
A strong correlation was observed for Question 1 ( r = 0.752–0.848, p < 0.001) and a moderate correlation was observed between AES and all manual scorers for Question 2 ( r = 0.527–0.571, p < 0.001). Intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.794–0.858 indicated excellent inter-rater agreement, and Cronbach’s α of 0.881–0.932 indicated high reliability. For Question 1, the mean AES scores were similar to those for manual scoring ( p > 0.05), and there was a strong correlation between AES and manual scores ( r = 0.829, p < 0.001). For Question 2, AES scores were significantly lower than manual scores ( p < 0.001), and there was a moderate correlation between AES and manual scores ( r = 0.599, p < 0.001).
This study shows the potential of ChatGPT for essay marking. However, an appropriate rubric design is essential for optimal reliability. With further validation, the ChatGPT has the potential to aid students in self-assessment or large-scale marking automated processes.
Peer Review reports
Large Language Models (LLMs), such as OpenAI’s GPT-4, LLaMA by META, and Google’s LaMDA (Language Models for Dialogue Applications), have demonstrated tremendous potential in generating outputs based on user-specified instructions or prompts. These models are trained using large amounts of data and are capable of natural language processing tasks. Owing to their ability to comprehend, interpret, and generate natural language text, LLMs allow human-like conversations with coherent contextual responses to prompts. The capability of LLMs to summarize and generate texts that resemble human language allows the creation of task-focused systems that can ease the demands of human labor and improve efficiency.
OpenAI uses a closed application programming interface (API) to process data. Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (OpenAI Inc., California, USA, https://chat.openai.com/ ) was introduced globally in 2020 as ChatGPT3, a generative language model with 175 billion parameters [ 1 ]. It is based on a generative AI model that can generate new content based on the data on which they have been trained. The latest version, ChatGPT-4, was introduced in 2023 and has demonstrated improved creativity, reasoning, and the ability to process even more complicated tasks [ 2 ].
Since its release in the public domain, ChatGPT has been actively explored by both healthcare professionals and educators in an effort to attain human-like performance in the form of clinical reasoning, image recognition, diagnosis, and learning from medical databases. ChatGPT has proven to be a powerful tool with immense potential to provide students with an interactive platform to deepen their understanding of any given topic [ 3 ]. In addition, it is also capable of aiding in both lesson planning and student assessments [ 4 , 5 ].
Automated Essay Scoring (AES) is not a new concept, and interest in AES has been increasing since the advent of AI. Three main categories of AES programs have been described, utilizing regression, classification, or neural network models [ 6 ]. A known problem of current AES systems is their unreliability in evaluating the content relevance and coherence of essays [ 6 ]. Newer language models such as ChatGPT, however, are potential game changers; they are simpler to learn than current deep learning programs and can therefore improve the accessibility of AES to educators. Mizumoto and Eguchi recently pioneered the potential use of ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 and 4) for AES in the field of linguistics and reported an accuracy level sufficient for use as a supportive tool even when fine-tuning of the model was not performed [ 7 ].
The use of these AI-powered tools may potentially ease the burden on educators in marking large numbers of essay scripts, while providing personalized feedback to students [ 8 , 9 ]. This is especially crucial with larger class sizes and increasing student-to-teacher ratios, where it can be more difficult for educators to actively engage individual students. Additionally, manual scoring by humans can be subjective and susceptible to fatigue, which may put the scoring at risk of being unreliable [ 7 , 10 ]. The use of AI for essay scoring may thus help reduce intra- and inter-rater variability associated with manual scoring by providing a more standardized and reliable scoring process that eases the time- and labor-intensive scoring workload of human assessors [ 10 , 11 ].
Generative AI has permeated the healthcare industry and provided a diverse range of health enhancements. An example is how AI facilitates radiographic evaluation and clinical diagnosis to improve the quality of patient care [ 12 , 13 ]. In medical and dental education, virtual or augmented reality and haptic simulations are some of the exciting technological tools already implemented to improve student competence and confidence in patient assessment and execution of procedures [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. The incorporation of ChatGPT into the dental curriculum would thus be the next step in enhancing student learning. The performance of ChatGPT in the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) was recently validated, with ChatGPT achieving a score equivalent to that of a third-year medical student [ 17 ]. However, no data are available on the performance of ChatGPT in the field of dentistry or oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS). Furthermore, the reliability of AI-powered language models for the grading of essays in the medical field has not yet been evaluated; in addition to essay structure and language, the evaluation of essay scripts in the field of OMS would require a level of understanding of dentistry, medicine and surgery.
Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the reliability of ChatGPT for AES in OMS examinations for final-year dental undergraduate students compared to human assessors. Our null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the scores between the ChatGPT and human assessors. The research question for the study was as follows: How reliable is ChatGPT when used for AES in OMS examinations compared to human assessors?
This study was conducted in the Faculty of Dentistry, National University of Singapore, under the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. The study received ethical approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board (REF: IRB-2023–1051) and was conducted and drafted with guidance from the education interventions critical appraisal worksheet introduced by BestBETs [ 18 ].
Sample size calculation for this study was based on the formula provided by Viechtbauer et al.: n = ln (1-γ) / ln(1-π), where n, γ and π represent the sample size, significance level and level of confidence respectively [ 19 ]. Based on a 5% margin of error, a 95% confidence level and a 50% outcome response, it was calculated that a minimum sample size of 59 subjects was required. Ultimately, the study recruited 69 participants, all of whom were final-year undergraduate dental students. A closed-book OMS examination was conducted on the Examplify platform (ExamSoft Worldwide Inc., Texas, USA) as a part of the end-of-module assessment. The examination comprised two open-ended essay questions based on the topics taught in the module (Table 1 ).
An assessment rubric was created for each question through discussion and collaboration of a workgroup comprising four assessors involved in the study. All members of the work group were academic staff from the faculty (I.I., B.Q., L.Z., T.J.H.S.) (Supplementary Tables S1 and S2) [ 20 ]. An analytic rubric was generated using the strategy outlined by Popham [ 21 ]. The process involved a discussion within the workgroup to agree on the learning outcomes of the essay questions. Two authors (I. I. and B. Q) independently generated the rubric criteria and descriptions for Question 1 (Infection). Similarly, for Question 2 (Trauma), the rubric criteria and descriptions were generated independently by two authors (I.I. and T.J.H.S.). The rubrics were revised until a consensus was reached between each pair. In the event of any disagreement, a third author (L.Z.) provided their opinion to aid in decision making.
Marking categories of Poor (0 marks), Satisfactory (2 marks), Good (3 marks), and Outstanding (4 marks) were allocated to each criterion, with a maximum of 4 marks attainable from each criterion. A criterion for overall essay structure and language was also included, with a maximum attainable 5 marks from this criterion. The highest score for each question was 40.
Model answers to the essays were prepared by another author (C.W.Y.), who did not participate in the creation of the rubrics. Using the rubrics as a reference, the author modified the model answer to create 5 variants of the answers such that each variant fell within different score ranges of 0–10, 11–20, 21–30, 31–40, 41–50. Subsequently, three authors (B. Q., L. Z., and T.J.H.S) graded the essays using the prepared rubrics. Revisions to the rubrics were made with consensus by all three authors, a process that also helped calibrate these three authors for manual essay scoring.
Essay scoring was performed using ChatGPT (GPT-4, released March 14, 2023) by one assessor who did not participate in the manual essay scoring exercise (I.I.). Prompts were generated based on a guideline by Giray, and the components of Instruction, Context, Input Data and Output Indication as discussed in the guideline were included in each prompt (Supplementary Tables 3 and 4) [ 22 ]. A prompt template was generated for each question by one assessor (I.I.) with advice from two experts in prompt engineering, based on the marking rubric. The criterion and point allocation were clearly written in prose and point forms. For the fine-tuning process, the prompts were input into ChatGPT using variants of the model answers provided by C.W.Y. Minor adjustments were made to the wording of certain parts of the prompts as necessary to correct any potential misinterpretations of the prompts by the ChatGPT. Each time, the prompt was entered into a new chat in the ChatGPT in a browser where the browser history and cookies were cleared. Subsequently, finalized prompts (Supplementary Tables 3 and 4) were used to score the student essays. AES scores were not used to calculate students’ actual essay scores.
Manual essay scoring was completed independently by three assessors (B.Q., L.Z., and T.J.H.S.) using the assessment rubrics (Supplementary Tables S1 and S2). Calibration was performed during the rubric creation stage. The essays were anonymized to prevent bias during the marking process. The assessors recorded the marks allocated to each criterion, as well as the overall score of each essay, on a pre-prepared Excel spreadsheet. Scoring was performed separately and independently by all assessors before the final collation by a research team member (I.I.) for statistical analyses. The student was considered ‘able to briefly mention’ a criterion if they did not mention any of the keywords of the points within the criterion. The student was considered ‘able to elaborate on’ a point within the criterion if they were able to mention the keywords of that point as stated in the rubric, and were thus awarded higher marks in accordance with the rubric (e.g. the student was given a higher mark if they were able to mention the need to check for dyspnea and dysphagia, instead of simply mentioning a need to check the patient’s airway). Grading was performed with only whole marks as specified in the rubrics, and assessors were not allowed to give half marks or subscores.
The scores given out of 40 per essay by each assessor were compiled. Data analyses were subsequently performed using SPSS® version 29.0.1.0(171) (IBM Corporation, New York, United States). For each essay question, correlations between the essay scores given by each assessor were analyzed and displayed using the inter-item correlation matrix. A correlation coefficient value ( r ) of 0.90–1.00 was indicative of a very strong, 0.70–0.89 indicative of strong, 0.40–0.69 moderate, 0.10–0.39 weak and < 0.10 negligible positive correlation between the scorers [ 23 ]. The cutoff p -value for the significance level was set at p < 0.05. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach's α were then calculated between all assessors to assess the inter-rater agreement and reliability, respectively [ 24 ]. The ICC was interpreted on a scale of 0 to 1.00, with a higher value indicating a higher level of agreement in scores given by the scorers to each student. A value less than 0.40 was indicative of poor, 0.40–0.59 fair, 0.60–0.74 good, and 0.75–1.00 excellent agreement [ 25 ]. Using Cronbach’s α, reliability was expressed on a range from 0 to 1.00, with a higher number indicating a higher level of consistency between the scorers in their scores given across the students. The reliability was considered ‘Less Reliable’ if the score was less 0.20, ‘Rather Reliable’ if the score was 0.20–0.40, ‘Quite Reliable’ if 0.40–0.60, ‘Reliable’ if 0.60–0.80 and ‘Very Reliable’ if 0.80–1.00 [ 26 ].
Similarly, the mean scores of the three manual scorers were calculated for each question. The mean manual scores were then analyzed for correlations with AES scores by using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Student’s t-test was also used to analyze any significant differences in mean scores between manual scoring and AES. A p -value of < 0.05 was required to conclude the presence of a statistically different score between the groups.
All final-year dental undergraduate students (69/69, 100%) had their essays graded by all manual scorers and AES as part of the study. Table 2 shows the mean scores for each individual assessor as well as the mean scores for the three manual scorers (Scorers 1, 2, and 3).
The inter-item correlation matrices and their respective p -values are listed in Table 3 . For Question 1, there was a strong positive correlation between the scores provided by each assessor (Scorers 1, 2, 3, and AES), with r -values ranging from 0.752–0.848. All p -values were < 0.001, indicating a significant positive correlation between all assessors. For Question 2, there was a strong positive correlation between Scorers 1 and 2 ( r = 0.829) and Scorers 1 and 3 ( r = 0.756). There was a moderate positive correlation between Scorers 2 and 3 ( r = 0.655), as well as between AES and all manual scores ( r -values ranging from 0.527 to 0.571). Similarly, all p -values were < 0.001, indicative of a significant positive correlation between all scorers.
For the analysis of inter-rater agreement, ICC values of 0.858 (95% CI 0.628 – 0.933) and 0.794 (95% CI 0.563 – 0.892) were obtained for Questions 1 and 2, respectively, both of which were indicative of excellent inter-rater agreement. Cronbach’s α was 0.932 for Question 1 and 0.881 for Question 2, both of which were ‘Very Reliable’.
The results of the Student’s t-test comparing the test score values from manual scoring and AES are shown in Table 2 . For Question 1, the mean manual scores (14.85 ± 4.988) were slightly higher than those of the AES (14.54 ± 5.490). However, these differences were not statistically significant ( p > 0.05). For Question 2, the mean manual scores (23.11 ± 4.241) were also higher than those of the AES (18.62 ± 4.044); this difference was statistically significant ( p < 0.001).
The results of the Pearson’s correlation coefficient calculations are shown in Table 4 . For Question 1, there was a strong and significant positive correlation between manual scoring and AES ( r = 0.829, p < 0.001). For Question 2, there was a moderate and statistically significant positive correlation between the two groups ( r = 0.599, p < 0.001).
Figures 1 , 2 and 3 show three examples of essay feedback and scoring provided by ChatGPT. ChatGPT provided feedback in a concise and systematic manner. Scores were clearly provided for each of the criteria listed in the assessment rubric. This was followed by in-depth feedback on the points within the criterion that the student had discussed and failed to mention. ChatGPT was able to differentiate between a student who briefly mentioned a key point and a student who provided better elaboration on the same point by allocating them two or three marks, respectively.
Example #1 of a marked essay with feedback from ChatGPT for Question 1
Example #2 of a marked essay with feedback from ChatGPT for Question 1
Example #3 of a marked essay with feedback from ChatGPT for Question 1
One limitation of ChatGPT that was identified during the scoring process was its inability to identify content that was not relevant to the essay or that was factually incorrect. This was despite the assessment rubric specifying that incorrect statements should be given 0 marks for that criterion. For example, a student who included points about incision and drainage also incorrectly stated that bone scraping to induce bleeding and packing of local hemostatic agents should be performed. Although these statements were factually incorrect, ChatGPT was unable to identify this and still awarded student marks for the point. Manual assessors were able to spot this and subsequently penalized the student for the mistake.
Since its recent rise in popularity, many people have been eager to tap into the potential of large language models, such as ChatGPT. In their review, Khan et al. discussed the growing role of ChatGPT in medical education, with promising uses for the creation of case studies and content such as quizzes and flashcards for self-directed practice [ 9 ]. As an LLM, the ability of ChatGPT to thoroughly evaluate sentence structure and clarity may allow it to confront the task of automated essay marking.
This study found significant correlations and excellent inter-rater agreement between ChatGPT and manual scorers, and the mean scores between both groups showed strong to moderate correlations for both essay questions. This suggests that AES has the potential to provide a level of essay marking similar to that of the educators in our faculty. Similar positive findings were reflected in previous studies that compared manual and automated essay scoring ( r = 0.532–0.766) [ 6 ]. However, there is still a need to further fine-tune the scoring system such that the score provided by AES deviates as little as possible from human scoring. For instance, the mean AES score was lower than that of manual scoring by 5 marks for Question 2. Although the difference may not seem large, it may potentially increase or decrease the final performance grade of students.
Apart from a decent level of reliability in manual essay scoring, there are many other benefits to using ChatGPT for AES. Compared to humans, the response time to prompts is much faster and can thus increase productivity and reduce the burden of a large workload on educational assessors [ 27 ]. In addition, ChatGPT can provide individualized feedback for each essay (Figs. 1 , 2 and 3 ). This helps provide students with comments specific to their essays, a feat that is difficult to achieve for a single educator teaching a large class size.
Similar to previous systems designed for AES, machine scoring is beneficial for removing human inconsistencies that can result from fatigue, mood swings, or bias [ 10 ]. ChatGPT is no exception. Furthermore, ChatGPT is more widely accessible than the conventional AES systems. Its software runs online instead of requiring downloads on a computer, and its user interface is simple to use. With GPT-3.5 being free to use and GPT-4 being 20 USD per month, it is also relatively inexpensive.
Marking the essay is only part of the equation, and the next step is to allow the students to know what went wrong and why. Nicol and Macfarlane described seven principles for good feedback. ChatGPT can fulfil most of these principles, namely, facilitating self-assessment, encouraging teacher and peer dialogue, clarifying what good performance is, providing opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance, and delivering high-quality information to students [ 28 ]. In this study, the feedback given by ChatGPT was categorized based on the rubric, and elaboration was provided for each criterion on the points the student mentioned and did not mention. By highlighting the ideal answer and where the student can improve, ChatGPT can clarify performance goals and provide opportunities to close the gap between the student’s current and desired performance. This creates opportunities for selfdirected learning and the utilization of blended learning environments. Students can use ChatGPT to review their preparation on topics, self-grade their essays, and receive instant feedback. Furthermore, the simple and interactive nature of the software encourages dialogue, as it can readily respond to any clarification the student wants to make. The importance of effective feedback has been demonstrated to be an essential component in medical education, in terms of enhancing the knowledge of the student without developing negative emotions [ 29 , 30 ].
These potential advantages of engaging ChatGPT for student assessments play well into the humanistic learning theory of medical education [ 31 , 32 ]. Self-directed learning allows students the freedom to learn at their own pace, with educators simply providing a conducive environment and the goals that the student should achieve. ChatGPT has the potential to supplement the role of the educator in self-directed learning, as it can be readily available to provide constructive and tailored feedback for assignments whenever the student is ready for it. This removes the burden that assignment deadlines place on students, which can allow them a greater sense of independence and control over their learning, and lead to greater self-motivation and self-fulfillment.
Potential pitfalls associated with the use of ChatGPT were identified. First, the ability to achieve reliable scores relies heavily on a well-created marking rubric with clearly defined terms. In this study, the correlations between scorers were stronger for Question 1 compared to Question 2, and the mean scores between the AES and manual scorers were also significantly different for Question 2, but not for Question 1. The lower reliability of the AES for Question 2 may be attributed to its broader nature, use of more complex medical terms, and lengthier scoring rubrics. The broad nature of the question left more room for individual interpretation and variation between humans and AES. The ability of ChatGPT to provide accurate answers may be reduced with lengthier prompts and conversations [ 27 ]. Furthermore, with less specific instructions or complex medical jargon, both automated systems and human scorers may interpret rubrics differently, resulting in varied scores across the board [ 10 , 33 , 34 ]. The authors thus recommend that to circumvent this, the use of ChatGPT for essay scoring should be restricted to questions that are less broad (e.g. shorter essays), or by breaking the task into multiple prompts for each individual criterion to reduce variations in interpretation [ 27 , 35 ]. Furthermore, the rubrics should contain concise and explicit instructions with appropriate grammar and vocabulary to avoid misinterpretation by both ChatGPT and human scorers, and provide a brief explanation to specify what certain medical terms mean (e.g. writing ‘pulse oximetry (SpO2) monitoring’ instead of only ‘SpO2’) for better contextualization [ 35 , 36 ].
Second, prompt engineering is a critical step in producing the desired outcome from ChatGPT [ 27 ]. A prompt that is too ambiguous or lacks context can lead to a response that is incomplete, generic, or irrelevant, and a prompt that exhibits bias runs the risk of bias reinforcement in the given reply [ 22 , 34 ]. Phrasing the prompt must also be carefully checked for spelling, grammatical mistakes, or inconsistencies, since ChatGPT uses the prompt’s phrasing literally. For example, a prompt that reads ‘give 3 marks if the student covers one or more coverage points’ will result in ChatGPT only giving the marks if multiple points are covered, because of the plural nature of the word ‘points’.
Third, irrelevant content may not be penalized during the essay-marking process. Students may ‘trick’ the AES by producing a lengthier essay to hit more relevant points and increase their score. This may result in essays of lower quality with multiple incorrect or nonsensical statements still rewarded with higher scores [ 10 ]. Our assessment rubric attempts to penalize the student with 0 marks if incorrect statements on the criterion are made; however, none of the students were penalized. This issue may be resolved as ChatGPT rapidly and continuously gains more medical and dental knowledge. Although data to support the competence of AI in medical education are sparse, the quality of the medical knowledge that ChatGPT already has is sufficient to achieve a passing mark at the USMLE [ 5 , 37 ]. In dentistry, when used to disseminate information on endodontics to patients, ChatGPT was found to provide detailed answers with an overall validity of 95% [ 38 ]. Over time, LLMs such as ChatGPT may be able to identify when students are not factually correct.
The lack of human emotion in machine scoring can be both an advantage and a disadvantage. AES can provide feedback that is entirely factual and less biased than humans, and grades are objective and final [ 39 ]. However, human empathy is an essential quality that ChatGPT does not possess. One principle of good feedback is to encourage and motivate students to provide positive learning experiences and build self-esteem [ 28 ]. While ChatGPT can provide constructive feedback, it will not be able to replace the compassion, empathy, or emotional intelligence possessed by a quality educator possesses [ 40 ]. In our study, ChatGPT awarded lower mean scores of 14.54/40 (36.4%) and 18.62/40 (46.5%) compared to manual scoring for both questions. Although objective, some may view automated scoring as harsh because it provided failing grades to an average student.
This study demonstrates the ability of GPT-4 to evaluate essays without any specialized training or prompting. One long prompt was used to score each essay. Although more technical prompting methods, such as chain of thought, could be deployed, our single prompt method makes the method scalable and easier to adopt. As discussed earlier, ChatGPT is the most reliable when prompts are short and specific [ 34 ]. Hence, each prompt should ideally task ChatGPT to score only one or two criteria, rather than the entire rubric of the 10 criteria. However, in a class of 70, the assessors are required to run 700 prompts per question, which is impractical and unnecessary. With only one prompt, a good correlation was still found between the AES and manual scoring. It is likely that further exploration and experimentation with prompting techniques can improve the output.
While LLMs have the potential to revolutionize education in healthcare, some precautions must be taken. Artificial Hallucination is a widely described phenomenon; ChatGPT may generate seemingly genuine but inaccurate information [ 41 , 42 , 43 ]. Hallucinations have been attributed to biases and limitations of training data as well as algorithmic limitations [ 2 ]. Similarly, randomness of the generated responses has been observed; while it is useful for generating creative content, this may be an issue when ChatGPT is employed for topics requiring scientific or factual content [ 44 ]. Thus, LLMs are not infallible and still require human subject matter experts to validate the generated content. Finally, it is essential that educators play an active role in driving the development of dedicated training models to ensure consistency, continuity, and accountability, as overreliance on a corporate-controlled model may place educators at the mercy of algorithm changes.
The ethical implications of using ChatGPT in medical and dental education also need to be explored. As much as LLMs can provide convenience to both students and educators, privacy and data security remain a concern [ 45 ]. Robust university privacy policies and informed consent procedures should be in place for the protection of student data prior to the use of ChatGPT as part of student assessment. Furthermore, if LLMs like ChatGPT were to be used for grading examinations in the future, issues revolving around fairness and transparency of the grading process need to be resolved [ 46 ]. GPT-4 may have provided harsh scores in this study, possibly due to some shortfall in understanding certain phrases the students have written; models used in assessments will thus require sufficient training in the field of healthcare to properly acquire the relevant medical knowledge and hence understand and grade essays fairly.
As AI continues to develop, ChatGPT may eventually replace human assessors in essay scoring for dental undergraduate examinations. However, given its current limitations and dependence on a well-formed assessment rubric, relying solely on ChatGPT for exam grading may be inappropriate when the scores can affect the student’s overall module scores, career success, and mental health [ 47 ]. While this study primarily demonstrates the use of ChatGPT to grade essays, it also points to great potential in using it as an interactive learning tool. A good start for its use is essay assignments on pre-set topics, where students can direct their learning on their own and receive objective feedback on essay structure and content that does not count towards their final scores. Students can use rubrics to practice and gain effective feedback from LLMs in an engaging and stress-free environment. This reduces the burden on educators by easing the time-consuming task of grading essay assignments and allows students the flexibility to complete and grade their assignments whenever they are ready. Furthermore, assignments repeated with new class cohorts can enable more robust feedback from ChatGPT through machine learning.
The limitations of this study lie in part of its methodology. The study recruited 69 dental undergraduate students; while this is above the minimum calculated sample size of 59, a larger sample size would help to increase the generalizability of the study findings to larger populations of students and a wide scope of topics. The unique field of OMS also requires knowledge of both medical and dental subjects, and hence the results obtained from the use of ChatGPT for essay marking in other medical or dental specialties may differ slightly.
The use of rubrics for manual scoring could also be a potential source of bias. While the rubrics provide a framework for objective assessment, they cannot eliminate the subjectiveness of manual scoring. Variations in the interpretation of the students’ answers, leniency errors (whereby one scorer marks more leniently than another) or rater drift (fatigue from assessing many essays may affect leniency of marking and judgment) may still occur. To minimize bias resulting from these errors, multiple assessors were recruited for the manual scoring process and the average scores were used for comparison with AES.
This study investigated the reliability of ChatGPT in essay scoring for OMS examinations, and found positive correlations between ChatGPT and manual essay scoring. However, ChatGPT tended towards stricter scoring and was not capable of penalizing irrelevant or incorrect content. In its present state, GPT-4 should not be used as a standalone tool for teaching or assessment in the field of medical and dental education but can serve as an adjunct to aid students in self-assessment. The importance of proper rubric design to achieve optimal reliability when employing ChatGPT in student assessment cannot be overemphasized.
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Floridi L, Chiriatti M. GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Mind Mach. 2020;30(4):681–94.
Article Google Scholar
Abd-Alrazaq A, AlSaad R, Alhuwail D, Ahmed A, Healy PM, Latifi S, Aziz S, Damseh R, Alabed Alrazak S, Sheikh J. Large language models in medical education: opportunities, challenges, and future directions. JMIR Med Educ. 2023;9:e48291.
Kasneci E, Sessler K, Küchemann S, Bannert M, Dementieva D, Fischer F, Gasser U, Groh G, Günnemann S, Hüllermeier E, et al. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learn Individ Differ. 2023;103:102274.
Javaid M, Haleem A, Singh RP, Khan S, Khan IH. Unlocking the opportunities through ChatGPT Tool towards ameliorating the education system. BenchCouncil Transact Benchmarks Standards Eval. 2023;3(2): 100115.
Kung TH, Cheatham M, Medenilla A, Sillos C, De Leon L, Elepaño C, Madriaga M, Aggabao R, Diaz-Candido G, Maningo J, et al. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digit Health. 2023;2(2):e0000198.
Ramesh D, Sanampudi SK. An automated essay scoring systems: a systematic literature review. Artif Intell Rev. 2022;55(3):2495–527.
Mizumoto A, Eguchi M. Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring. Res Methods Appl Linguist. 2023;2(2): 100050.
Erturk S, Tilburg W, Igou E: Off the mark: Repetitive marking undermines essay evaluations due to boredom. Motiv Emotion 2022;46.
Khan RA, Jawaid M, Khan AR, Sajjad M. ChatGPT - Reshaping medical education and clinical management. Pak J Med Sci. 2023;39(2):605–7.
Hussein MA, Hassan H, Nassef M. Automated language essay scoring systems: a literature review. PeerJ Comput Sci. 2019;5:e208.
Blood I: Automated essay scoring: a literature review. Studies in Applied Linguistics and TESOL 2011, 11(2).
Menezes LDS, Silva TP, Lima Dos Santos MA, Hughes MM, Mariano Souza SDR, Leite Ribeiro PM, Freitas PHL, Takeshita WM: Assessment of landmark detection in cephalometric radiographs with different conditions of brightness and contrast using the an artificial intelligence software. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2023:20230065.
Bennani S, Regnard NE, Ventre J, Lassalle L, Nguyen T, Ducarouge A, Dargent L, Guillo E, Gouhier E, Zaimi SH, et al. Using AI to improve radiologist performance in detection of abnormalities on chest radiographs. Radiology. 2023;309(3): e230860.
Moussa R, Alghazaly A, Althagafi N, Eshky R, Borzangy S. Effectiveness of virtual reality and interactive simulators on dental education outcomes: systematic review. Eur J Dent. 2022;16(1):14–31.
Fanizzi C, Carone G, Rocca A, Ayadi R, Petrenko V, Casali C, Rani M, Giachino M, Falsitta LV, Gambatesa E, et al. Simulation to become a better neurosurgeon An international prospective controlled trial: The Passion study. Brain Spine. 2024;4:102829.
Lovett M, Ahanonu E, Molzahn A, Biffar D, Hamilton A. Optimizing individual wound closure practice using augmented reality: a randomized controlled study. Cureus. 2024;16(4):e59296.
Google Scholar
Gilson A, Safranek CW, Huang T, Socrates V, Chi L, Taylor RA, Chartash D. How does ChatGPT perform on the United States medical licensing examination? the implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment. JMIR Med Educ. 2023;9:e45312.
Educational Intervention Worksheet, BestBets, Accessed 31/03/2024. https://bestbets.org/ca/pdf/educational_intervention.pdf .
Viechtbauer W, Smits L, Kotz D, Budé L, Spigt M, Serroyen J, Crutzen R. A simple formula for the calculation of sample size in pilot studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(11):1375–9.
Cox G, Morrison J, Brathwaite B: The Rubric: An Assessment Tool to Guide Students and Markers; 2015.
Popham J. W: “What’s Wrong—And What’s Right—With Rubrics.” Educ Leadersh. 1997;55(2):72–5.
Giray L. Prompt Engineering with ChatGPT: A Guide for Academic Writers. Ann Biomed Eng. 2023;51:3.
Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1763–8.
Liao SC, Hunt EA, Chen W. Comparison between inter-rater reliability and inter-rater agreement in performance assessment. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2010;39(8):613–8.
Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(4):284–90.
Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R: Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; 2010.
Nazir A, Wang Z: A Comprehensive Survey of ChatGPT: Advancements, Applications, Prospects, and Challenges. Meta Radiol 2023;1(2).
Nicol D, Macfarlane D: Rethinking Formative Assessment in HE: a theoretical model and seven principles of good feedback practice. IEEE Personal Communications - IEEE Pers Commun 2004;31.
Spooner M, Larkin J, Liew SC, Jaafar MH, McConkey S, Pawlikowska T. “Tell me what is ‘better’!” How medical students experience feedback, through the lens of self-regulatory learning. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):895.
Kornegay JG, Kraut A, Manthey D, Omron R, Caretta-Weyer H, Kuhn G, Martin S, Yarris LM. Feedback in medical education: a critical appraisal. AEM Educ Train. 2017;1(2):98–109.
Mukhalalati BA, Taylor A. Adult learning theories in context: a quick guide for healthcare professional educators. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2019;6:2382120519840332.
Taylor DC, Hamdy H. Adult learning theories: implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 83. Med Teach. 2013;35(11):e1561-1572.
Chakraborty S, Dann C, Mandal A, Dann B, Paul M, Hafeez-Baig A: Effects of Rubric Quality on Marker Variation in Higher Education. Studies In Educational Evaluation 2021;70.
Heston T, Khun C. Prompt engineering in medical education. Int Med Educ. 2023;2:198–205.
Sun GH: Prompt Engineering for Nurse Educators. Nurse Educ 2024.
Meskó B. Prompt engineering as an important emerging skill for medical professionals: tutorial. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e50638.
Sun L, Yin C, Xu Q, Zhao W. Artificial intelligence for healthcare and medical education: a systematic review. Am J Transl Res. 2023;15(7):4820–8.
Mohammad-Rahimi H, Ourang SA, Pourhoseingholi MA, Dianat O, Dummer PMH, Nosrat A: Validity and reliability of artificial intelligence chatbots as public sources of information on endodontics. Int Endodontic J 2023, n/a(n/a).
Peng X, Ke D, Xu B: Automated essay scoring based on finite state transducer: towards ASR transcription of oral English speech. In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Long Papers - Volume 1. Jeju Island, Korea: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2012:50–59.
Grassini S. Shaping the future of education: Exploring the Potential and Consequences of AI and ChatGPT in Educational Settings. Educ Sci. 2023;13(7):692.
Limitations. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt .
Sallam M, Salim NA, Barakat M, Al-Tammemi AB. ChatGPT applications in medical, dental, pharmacy, and public health education: A descriptive study highlighting the advantages and limitations. Narra J. 2023;3(1):e103.
Deng J, Lin Y. The Benefits and Challenges of ChatGPT: An Overview. Front Comput Intell Syst. 2023;2:81–3.
Choi W. Assessment of the capacity of ChatGPT as a self-learning tool in medical pharmacology: a study using MCQs. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):864.
Medina-Romero MÁ, Jinchuña Huallpa J, Flores-Arocutipa J, Panduro W, Chauca Huete L, Flores Limo F, Herrera E, Callacna R, Ariza Flores V, Quispe I, et al. Exploring the ethical considerations of using Chat GPT in university education. Period Eng Nat Sci (PEN). 2023;11:105–15.
Lee H. The rise of ChatGPT: Exploring its potential in medical education. Anat Sci Educ. 2024;17(5):926–31.
Steare T, Gutiérrez Muñoz C, Sullivan A, Lewis G. The association between academic pressure and adolescent mental health problems: A systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2023;339:302–17.
Download references
We would like to extend our gratitude to Mr Paul Timothy Tan Bee Xian and Mr Jonathan Sim for their invaluable advice on the process of prompt engineering for the effective execution of this study.
Lei Zheng, Timothy Jie Han Sng and Chee Weng Yong contributed equally to this work.
Faculty of Dentistry, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
Bernadette Quah, Lei Zheng, Timothy Jie Han Sng, Chee Weng Yong & Intekhab Islam
Discipline of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, National University Centre for Oral Health, 9 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, Singapore
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
B.Q. contributed in the stages of conceptualization, methodology, study execution, validation, formal analysis and manuscript writing (original draft and review and editing). L.Z., T.J.H.S. and C.W.Y. contributed in the stages of methodology, study execution, and manuscript writing (review and editing). I.I. contributed in the stages of conceptualization, methodology, study execution, validation, formal analysis, manuscript writing (review and editing) and supervision. All authors provided substantial contributions to this manuscript in the following form:
Correspondence to Intekhab Islam .
Ethics approval and consent to participate.
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the university (REF: IRB-2023–1051). The waiver of consent from students was approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board, as the scores by ChatGPT were not used as the students’ actual grades, and all essay manuscripts were anonymized.
All the authors reviewed the content of this manuscript and provided consent for publication.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary material 1, rights and permissions.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Quah, B., Zheng, L., Sng, T.J.H. et al. Reliability of ChatGPT in automated essay scoring for dental undergraduate examinations. BMC Med Educ 24 , 962 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05881-6
Download citation
Received : 04 February 2024
Accepted : 09 August 2024
Published : 03 September 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05881-6
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
ISSN: 1472-6920
By submitting the above I agree to the privacy policy and terms of use of JTA.org
JERUSALEM — Three hundred and thirty-two days after Hersh Goldberg-Polin danced in the courtyard next to his Jerusalem synagogue on the holiday of Simchat Torah, more than a thousand people gathered there in grief and prayer to mourn his murder by Hamas terrorists in Gaza.
During the Sunday night vigil, the courtyard railings were lined with oversized yellow ribbons to symbolize advocacy for the hostages, Hapoel Jerusalem soccer flags — the 23-year-old’s favorite team — and posters that read, “We love you, stay strong, survive,” a mantra coined by his mother, Rachel Goldberg-Polin.
Just hours earlier, one of the posters had been hanging over the balcony of the home of Shira Ben-Sasson, a leader of Hakhel, the Goldberg-Polins’ egalitarian congregation in the Baka neighborhood of Jerusalem.
“We were sure we would take it down when he came home,” Ben-Sasson said.
The community wanted to unite while respecting the Goldberg-Polins’ desire for privacy, she said, prompting them to organize the prayer gathering.
“But it’s like a Band-Aid or giving first aid, it’s what you do in an emergency. I don’t know how we go on after this,” she said.
A covered courtyard at the Hakhel congregation was filled with mourners the day after Hersh Goldberg-Polin, whose family are prominent members, was found to have been killed in Gaza. Hundreds of other people crowded outside the gates, Sept. 1, 2024. (Deborah Danan)
She added that the community, which has a large contingent of English-speaking immigrants, was not prepared for the High Holidays, which begin in about a month. She said, “Seeing his empty seat is hard.”
For Ben-Sasson, who wore a T-shirt bearing the Talmudic dictum “There is no greater mitzvah than the redeeming of captives,” the tragedy is especially painful because, she said, it could have been avoided with a ceasefire agreement that freed hostages.
“Hersh was alive 48 hours ago. We think a deal could have saved him. There is no military solution to this,” she said.
That feeling of bereavement, often mixed with betrayal, pervaded gatherings across Israel on Sunday, as the country struggled with the news that six hostages who may have been freed in an agreement were now dead as negotiations continue to stall. Speakers at protests in Tel Aviv blamed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who himself apologized for not getting the hostages out alive but blamed Hamas for obstructing a deal. The country’s labor union, the Histadrut, has called a national strike on Monday to demand a deal.
A rare early September rain lashed parts of Israel on Sunday, leading to a widespread interpretation: God, too, was weeping.
Some at the Jerusalem gathering, including the relative of another former hostage, said Netanyahu had chosen defeating Hamas over freeing the captives.
Josef Avi Yair Engel’s grandson Ofir was released from Hamas captivity in November. He paid tribute to Hersh Goldberg-Polin, murdered in captivity, in Jerusalem, Sept. 1, 2024. (Deborah Danan)
Josef Avi Yair Engel, whose grandson Ofir, 18, was released from Hamas captivity in November during that month’s ceasefire deal, expressed shock over Hersh’s murder but said he was not surprised, given the wartime policies of Netanyahu’s government.
“We knew months ago this was going to happen. Bibi’s formula, to dismantle Hamas and return the hostages, wasn’t logical. It’s an either/or situation,” Engel said, referring to Netanyahu by his nickname. “He’s tearing the country apart. I’m afraid that in the coming months there won’t be a state at all.”
Engel said he felt a close bond with Hersh’s father Jon Polin, not only because of their joint activism in the hostage families’ tent outside the Prime Minister’s Residence, but also because of their shared identity as Jerusalemites.
“There aren’t many of us in the hostage circle,” he said. “We’re like family.”
Sarah Mann, who did not know the family personally, said the weekend’s tragedy reminded her of Oct. 7.
“This day has sparks of the seventh, which created numbness and an inability to talk. Just complete shock,” she said.
Mourners left notes at a gathering at Hersh Goldberg-Polin’s family synagogue in Jerusalem. Many of the messages used the Hebrew word for “sorry.” (Deborah Danan)
Part of the reason for that, Mann said, was Rachel, who she described as a “force of faith.” Goldberg-Polin’s mother emerged as the most prominent advocate for the hostages globally and became a symbol in her own right as she crisscrossed the world calling for her son’s freedom.
“Millions of people around the world held onto her. Once that was cut, people’s ability to hold onto faith was knocked out today. But even though this has shattered us, we need to keep holding onto God,” Mann said.
For Susi Döring Preston, the day called to mind was not Oct. 7 but Yom Kippur, and its communal solemnity.
She said she usually steers clear of similar war-related events because they are too overwhelming for her.
“Before I avoided stuff like this because I guess I still had hope. But now is the time to just give in to needing to be around people because you can’t hold your own self up any more,” she said, tears rolling down her face. “You need to feel the humanity and hang onto that.”
Like so many others, Döring Preston paid tribute to the Goldberg-Polins’ tireless activism. “They needed everyone else’s strength but we drew so much strength from them and their efforts, “she said. “You felt it could change the outcome. But war is more evil than good. I think that’s the crushing thing. You can do everything right, but the outcome is still devastating.”
Guy Gordon, with his daughter Maya, added a broken heart to the piece of tape he has worn daily to mark the number of days since the hostage crisis began, Sept. 1, 2024. (Deborah Danan)
Guy Gordon, a member of Hakhel who moved to Israel from Dublin, Ireland, in the mid-1990s, said the efforts towards ensuring Hersh’s safe return have been an anchor for the community during the war. The community knew him as the family described him in its announcement of his funeral on Tuesday, as “a child of light, love and peace” who enjoyed exploring the world and coming home to his family, including his parents and younger sisters, Leebie and Orly.
“It gave us something to hope for, and pray for and to demonstrate for,” he said. “We had no choice but to be unreasonably optimistic. Tragically it transpired that he survived until the very end.”
Gordon, like many others in the crowd, wore a piece of duct tape marked with the number of days since Oct. 7 — a gesture initiated by Goldberg-Polin’s mother. Unlike on previous days, though, his tape also featured a broken red heart beside the number.
Nadia Levene, a family friend, also reflected on the improbability of Hersh’s survival.
“He did exactly what his parents begged him to do. He was strong. He did survive. And look what happened,” Levene said.
She hailed Rachel Goldberg-Polin’s “unwavering strength and belief in God,” adding, “There were times I lost faith. I suppose I was angry with God. But she just kept inspiring us all to pray, pray, pray.”
Leah Silver of Jerusalem examined stickers showing Rachel Goldberg-Polin’s mantra for her son Hersh, who was murdered in captivity in Gaza, at a gathering after Hersh’s death, Sept. 1, 2024. (Deborah Danan)
Jerusalem resident Leah Silver rejected politicizing the hostages’ deaths.
“Everything turns political so quickly. I came here because I felt that before all the protests, we need to just mourn for a moment and to pray. And show respect for each other,” she said. “We’ve become confused about who the enemy is. It’s very sad.”
But not everyone at the gathering joined in to sing Israel’s national anthem at the closing of the prayer gathering.
“I’m sorry, I can’t sing ‘Hatikvah,'” Reza Green, a Baka resident who did not know the Goldberg-Polins personally, said. “I’m too angry. We shouldn’t be here.”
Recommended from jta.
COMMENTS
working capital. financial assets. more . "You have had the means to live comfortably for quite some time now.". Noun. . A means of attaining an end, especially one that is convenient but possibly improper or immoral. expedient. stratagem.
Synonyms for MEANS: signifies, implies, denotes, indicates, suggests, intends, spells, expresses; Antonyms of MEANS: liabilities, debts, indebtedness
id est. to put it another way. to rephrase it. this imply. this illustrates. such a manner. n. Another way to say This Means? Synonyms for This Means (other words and phrases for This Means).
Find 83 different ways to say MEANS, along with antonyms, related words, and example sentences at Thesaurus.com.
Synonyms for ESSAY: article, paper, dissertation, theme, thesis, composition, treatise, editorial; Antonyms of ESSAY: quit, drop, give up Games & Quizzes ... While the synonyms attempt and essay are close in meaning, attempt stresses the initiation or beginning of an effort.
Related terms for this means- synonyms, antonyms and sentences with this means
4. That is to say. Usage: "That is" and "that is to say" can be used to add further detail to your explanation, or to be more precise. Example: "Whales are mammals. That is to say, they must breathe air.". 5. To that end. Usage: Use "to that end" or "to this end" in a similar way to "in order to" or "so".
Synonyms for MEAN: signify, imply, denote, indicate, suggest, intend, spell, express; Antonyms of MEAN: maximum, minimum, utmost, liabilities, debts, indebtedness ...
ESSAY - Synonyms, related words and examples | Cambridge English Thesaurus
Thesaurus.com is more than just a website for finding synonyms and antonyms of words. It is a comprehensive online resource that helps you improve your vocabulary, writing, and communication skills. Whether you need a word of the day, a synonym for a common term, or an example sentence to illustrate your point, Thesaurus.com has it all.
to put it another way. meaning to say. specifically. which is to say. to be specific. i.e. as it were. by way of explanation. strictly speaking.
157 other terms for which means- words and phrases with similar meaning
dive in. try to get. try to obtain. make a bid for. make a play for. make a pitch for. make a move. more . "The spectators essay a smile in order to draw him into their confidence, but their overtures are met with a stolid immobility of feature.".
Online English Thesaurus from Collins: More than 500,000 synonyms and antonyms - With definitions, meanings, phrases, and examples.
Synonyms for ESSAY in English: composition, study, paper, article, piece, assignment, discourse, tract, treatise, dissertation, …
Browse the Thesaurus. Make your writing more precise and effective with the Merriam-Webster Thesaurus. Our unique ranking system helps you find the right word fast—from millions of synonyms, similar words, and antonyms. An indispensable English language reference.
KEY TAKEAWAYS. "This shows" is a common phrase used in essays to demonstrate how one thing leads to another. "This demonstrates" is a great formal synonym that'll help to spice up your academic writing. Try "suggesting" as an alternative that shows how one thing could have created another. Keep reading to learn different ways to ...
Overall means to take all parts into account or to look at something as a whole. In essays and business writing in particular, it is an overused word. Luckily, there are many synonyms for overall that you can use. For the purpose of this article, we are not talking about the loose protective coverall clothing item called overalls.
What's the definition of Essay in thesaurus? Most related words/phrases with sentence examples define Essay meaning and usage.
Essay Synonyms and Antonyms. ĕsā, ĕ-sā . Meanings Synonyms Common Words ... Related words are words that are directly connected to each other through their meaning, even if they are not synonyms or antonyms. This connection may be general or specific, or the words may appear frequently together. Related: words; investigate; 1000-word ...
Stated. One of the most common ways to replace "said" in an essay is "stated.". It's a great formal synonym that helps to keep things direct and clear for the reader. It works well before a quote. You should write "stated" to clarify that you're about to run a quote by the reader. Of course, you can't claim that someone ...
When Kris Kristofferson wrote the iconic lyrics, Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose, in "Me and Bobby McGee," that's exactly how he felt: free. But as he came to find ...
Synonyms for which means include meaning that, the corollary being that, which is to say, denoting that, designating that, signifying that, which adds up to, which alludes, which argues and which attests. Find more similar words at wordhippo.com!
33 Transition Words and Phrases. 'Besides,' 'furthermore,' 'although,' and other words to help you jump from one idea to the next. Transitional terms give writers the opportunity to prepare readers for a new idea, connecting the previous sentence to the next one. Many transitional words are nearly synonymous: words that broadly indicate that ...
Table 4 Correlation between mean essay scores by manual scorers and AES. A strong and moderate correlation was found between the two groups for Questions 1 and 2 respectively. Full size table. Qualitative feedback from AES. Figures 1, 2 and 3 show three examples of essay feedback and scoring provided by ChatGPT. ChatGPT provided feedback in a ...
JERUSALEM — Three hundred and thirty-two days after Hersh Goldberg-Polin danced in the courtyard next to his Jerusalem synagogue on the holiday of Simchat Torah, more than a thousand people ...