Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 1

How Reliable Is It to Automatically Score Open-Ended Items? An Application in the Turkish Language

Pages
28–53
Publication Date
2021-03-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was found that the best algorithm to be used in automated scoring is bidirectional long-short term memory.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The use of open-ended items, especially in large-scale tests, created difficulties in scoring open-ended items.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The other objective was to investigate the change in the reliability of automated scoring by differentiating the data rate used in testing the automated scoring system (33%, 20%, and 10%).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was found that the best algorithm to be used in automated scoring is bidirectional long-short term memory.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:open-ended item · machine learning algorithms · automated scoring

Abstract

The use of open-ended items, especially in large-scale tests, created difficulties in scoring open-ended items. However, this problem can be overcome with an approach based on automated scoring of open-ended items. The aim of this study was to examine the reliability of the data obtained by scoring open-ended items automatically. One of the objectives was to compare different algorithms based on machine learning in automated scoring (support vector machines, logistic regression, multinominal Naive Bayes, long-short term memory, and bidirectional long-short term memory). The other objective was to investigate the change in the reliability of automated scoring by differentiating the data rate used in testing the automated scoring system (33%, 20%, and 10%). While examining the reliability of automated scoring, a comparison was made with the reliability of the data obtained from human raters. In this study, which demonstrated the first automated scoring attempt of open-ended items in the Turkish language, Turkish test data of the Academic Skills Monitoring and Evaluation (ABIDE) program administered by the Ministry of National Education were used. Cross-validation was used to test the system. Regarding the coefficients of agreement to show reliability, the percentage of agreement, the quadratic-weighted Kappa, which is frequently used in automated scoring studies, and the Gwet's AC1 coefficient, which is not affected by the prevalence problem in the distribution of data into categories, were used. The results of the study showed that automated scoring algorithms could be utilized. It was found that the best algorithm to be used in automated scoring is bidirectional long-short term memory. Long-short term memory and multinominal Naive Bayes algorithms showed lower performance than support vector machines, logistic regression, and bidirectional long-short term memory algorithms. In automated scoring, it was determined that the coefficients of agreement at 33% test data rate were slightly lower comparing 10% and 20% test data rates, but were within the desired range.

🔖

Cite This Article

UYSAL, İ., DOĞAN, N. (2021). How Reliable Is It to Automatically Score Open-Ended Items? An Application in the Turkish Language. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 1, 28–53. https://ajindex.com/articles/137253

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Adesiji, K. M., Agbonifo, O. C., Adesuyi, A. T., & Olabode, O. (2016). Development of an automated descriptive text-based scoring system. British Journal of Mathematics & Computer Science, 19(4), 1-14. doi: 10.9734/BJMCS/2016/27558 Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. Boca Raton: CRC. Araujo, J., & Born, D. G. (1985). Calculating percentage agreement correctly but writing its formula incorrectly. The Behavior Analyst, 8(2), 207-208. doi: 10.1007/BF03393152 Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater® v.2. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(3). Retrieved from http://www.jtla.org.
  2. Berg, P-C., & Gopinathan, M. (2017). A deep learning ensemble approach to gender identification of tweet authors (Master's thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology). Retrieved from https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/2458477
  3. Brenner, H., & Kliebsch, U. (1996). Dependence of weighted Kappa coefficients on the number of categories. Epidemiology, 7(2), 199-202. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199603000-00016
  4. Byrt, T., Bishop, J., & Carlin, J. B. (1993). Bias, prevalence and Kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(5), 423-429. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-V Chen, H., Xu, J., & He, B. (2014). Automated essay scoring by capturing relative writing quality. The Computer Journal, 57(9), 1318-1330. doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxt117 Cohen, Y., Ben-Simon, A., & Hovav, M. (October, 2003). The effect of specific language features on the complexity of systems for automated essay scoring. Paper presented at the International Association of Educational Administration, Manchester. Cohen, Y., Levi, E., & Ben-Simon, A. (2018). Validating human and automated scoring of essays against "True" scores. Applied Measurement in Education, 31(3), 241-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2018.1464450
  5. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Downing, S. M. (2009). Written tests: Constructed-response and selected-response formats. In S. M. Downing & R. Yudkowsky (Eds.), Assessment in health professions education (pp. 149-184).
  6. New York, NY: Routledge. Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Eugenio, B. D., & Glass, M. (2004). The Kappa statistic: A second look. Computational Linguistics, 30(1), 95-101. https://doi.org/10.1162/08912010