Exploring Data Augmentation in a Low-Resource Language Context: A Case Study on Text Generation for Reading Comprehension in Turkish

This study presents a controlled empirical and comparative analysis of existing data augmentation techniques for text generation in Turkish, a morphologically rich, low-resource language. A collection of 265 Turkish reading passages for Grades 4 and 5 was augmented using four techniques: paraphrasing with GPT-3.5-turbo (Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3.5 Turbo), back translation (Turkish–English–Turkish and Turkish–French–Turkish) via Google Translate, synonym replacement via GPT-3.5-turbo, and random insertion via GPT-3.5-turbo. Human evaluators assessed the fluency, coherence, grammaticality, logical flow, and naturalness of the augmented datasets. Each augmented dataset, along with the original, was then used to fine-tune a Turkish GPT-2-medium model, which was evaluated using automatic metrics such as BLEU (Bilingual Evaluation Understudy), ROUGE (Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation), METEOR (Metric for Evaluation of Translation with Explicit ORdering), chrF (CHaRacter-level F-score), BERTScore (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers Score), and cosine similarity. According to the human evaluation of the original and augmented datasets, the original texts received the highest ratings, followed by those generated through random insertion, paraphrasing, synonym replacement, and back translation variants, with cosine similarity results between original and augmented texts showing a comparable trend; however, the differences between methods were generally small. The results from text generation indicate that models trained on the original dataset generally achieved slightly higher performance across evaluation metrics compared to those trained on augmented datasets. Among the augmented methods, synonym replacement showed marginally better performance, followed by back translation, random insertion, and paraphrasing; however, the differences between methods were small and not statistically significant.