Dergiler / Contemporary Educational Technology / 2018 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 4

Home-Grown Automated Essay Scoring in the Literature Classroom: A Solution for Managing the Crowd?

Sayfa
423–436
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The findings implied that the size of the datacollected in an authentic classroom environment was too small for classificationalgorithms in terms of automated essay scoring for classroom assessment.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Managing crowded classes in terms of classroom assessment is a difficult task due tothe amount of time which needs to be devoted to providing feedback to studentproducts.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Secondarily, thestudy aimed to test if automatically-given scores would correlate with the scores givenby a human rater.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The findings implied that the size of the datacollected in an authentic classroom environment was too small for classificationalgorithms in terms of automated essay scoring for classroom assessment.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Managing crowded classes in terms of classroom assessment is a difficult task due tothe amount of time which needs to be devoted to providing feedback to studentproducts. In this respect, the present study aimed to develop an automated essayscoring environment as a potential means to overcome this problem. Secondarily, thestudy aimed to test if automatically-given scores would correlate with the scores givenby a human rater. A quantitative research design employing a machine learningapproach was preferred to meet the aims of the study. The data set to be used formachine learning consisted of 160 scored literary analysis essays written in an EnglishLiterature course, each essay analyzing a theme in a given literary work. To train theautomated scoring model, LightSide software was used. First, textual features wereextracted and filtered. Then, Logistic Regression, SMO, SVO, Logistic Tree and NaïveBayes text classification algorithms were tested by using 10-Fold Cross-Validation toreach the most accurate model. To see if the scores given by the computer correlatedwith the scores given by the human rater, Spearman’s Rank Order CorrelationCoefficient was calculated. The results showed that none of the algorithms weresufficiently accurate in terms of the scores of the essays within the data set. It was alsoseen that the scores given by the computer were not significantly correlated with thescores given by the human rater. The findings implied that the size of the datacollected in an authentic classroom environment was too small for classificationalgorithms in terms of automated essay scoring for classroom assessment.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Uzun, K. (2022). Home-Grown Automated Essay Scoring in the Literature Classroom: A Solution for Managing the Crowd?. Contemporary Educational Technology, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 4, 423–436. https://ajindex.com/articles/476617

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (10)

  1. Abu-Mustafa, Y. S., Magdon-Ismail, M., & Lin, H.-T. (2012). Learning from data (1st ed.). Seattle: AML Book. Anderson, S.E., & Ben Jafaar, S. (2006). Policy trends in Ontario education: 1990-2003. (ICEC Working Paper #1). University of Toronto, Ontario Institute. Retrieved on 22 January 2018 from http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~icec/policytrends.pdf
  2. Attali, Y. & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater V.2. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment (JTLA), 4(3). Retrieved on 11 March 2016 from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/ index.php/jtla/article/view/1650 Attali, Y. (2013). Validity and reliability of automated essay scoring. In M.D. Shermis & J.C. Burstein (Eds.), Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions (pp. 181-198).
  3. New York, NY: Routledge. Baker, N. L. (2014). “Get it off my stack”: Teachers’ tools for grading papers. Assessing Writing, 19, 36-50. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.005. Barker, T. (2011). An automated individual feedback and marking system: An empirical study. The Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 9(1), 1-14.
  4. Bauer, J. (2016). A new approach: Closing the writing gap by using reliable assessment to guide and evaluate cross-curricular argumentative writing (Unpublished master’s thesis). The University of Wisconsin, USA. Brookhart, S.M. & Bronowicz, D.L. (2003). “I don’t like writing. It makes my fingers hurt”: students talk about their classroom assessments. Assessment in Education, 10(2), 221- 242. Chih-Min, S. & Li-Yi, W. (2013). Factors affecting English language teachers’ classroom assessment practices: A case study of Singapore secondary schools. NIE research brief series. Retrieved on 12 March 2016 from http://hdl.handle.net/10497/15003
  5. Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286-302.
  6. Deane, P. (2013). On the relation between automated essay scoring and modern views of the writing construct. Assessing Writing, 18(1), 7-24.
  7. Dikli, S. (2006). An overview of automated scoring of essays. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 5(1), 1-35.
  8. Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  9. Duncan, C. R. & Noonan, B. (2007). Factors affecting teachers' grading and assessment practices. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(1), 1-21.
  10. Fulcher, G. & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing a