# From Scoring to Explanations: Evaluating SHAP and LLM Rationales for Rubric-based Teaching Quality Assessment

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05180 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.05180/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 21 of its 37 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 21 of 21)

- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.11692/) (2019)
- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.11942/) (2019)
- [A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.09635/) (2019)
- [DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.09543/) (2021)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Attention is not Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.10186/) (2019)
- [Attention is not not Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.04626/) (2019)
- [Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.03685/) (2020)
- [ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.03429/) (2019)
- [The Unreliability of Explanations in Few-shot Prompting for Textual Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.03401/) (2022)
- [Reducing hallucination in structured outputs via Retrieval-Augmented Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.08189/) (2024)
- [The NCTE Transcripts: A Dataset of Elementary Math Classroom Transcripts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.11772/) (2022)
- [Is ChatGPT a Good Teacher Coach? Measuring Zero-Shot Performance For Scoring and Providing Actionable Insights on Classroom Instruction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03090/) (2023)
- [Can AI grade your essays? A comparative analysis of large language models and teacher ratings in multidimensional essay scoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16337/) (2024)
- [Explaining Large Language Models Decisions Using Shapley Values](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01332/) (2024)
- [Automated Assessment of Encouragement and Warmth in Classrooms Leveraging Multimodal Emotional Features and ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.15310/) (2024)
- [Utilizing Natural Language Processing for Automated Assessment of Classroom Discussion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.14918/) (2023)
- [Multimodal Assessment of Classroom Discourse Quality: A Text-Centered Attention-Based Multi-Task Learning Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.07902/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Automated scoring models are increasingly used to assign rubric-based quality ratings to complex language performances, including classroom transcripts, yet they typically provide little insight into why a particular score is produced. We propose a general framework for sentence-level interpretability of rubric-based scoring that combines model-agnostic Shapley-value attributions with rationales generated by large language models (LLMs). Instantiated on the Quality of Feedback dimension of the CLASS framework using the NCTE corpus, the framework enables systematic comparison of fine-tuned pretrained language models (PLMs) and prompted LLMs on both scoring performance and explanation faithfulness. Across 6k annotated transcript segments, fine-tuned PLMs outperform LLMs in prediction accuracy but exhibit label compression toward mid-scale scores. Deletion-based tests show that SHAP identifies sentences that reliably drive model predictions, producing typically larger and more coherent prediction shifts than LLM-generated rationales. Cross-model analyses further reveal that SHAP attributions transfer robustly across architectures, whereas LLM rationales exert limited and inconsistent influence. Overall, the findings demonstrate that SHAP provides more faithful and transferable explanations for rubric-based scoring, and that the proposed framework offers a principled basis for evaluating both scoring models and their explanations in high-stakes educational settings and other rubric-based language assessment tasks.