MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167507251 · doi:10.1111/medu.12517

Automated essay scoring and the future of educational assessment in medical education

2014· article· en· W2167507251 on OpenAlexaff
Mark J. Gierl, Syed Latifi, Hollis Lai, André-Philippe Boulais, André De Champlain

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsMedical Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummative assessmentFormative assessmentComputer scienceProcess (computing)Context (archaeology)Scoring systemWriting assessmentEducational measurementArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingMachine learningMathematics educationCurriculumPsychologyMedicinePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Constructed-response tasks, which range from short-answer tests to essay questions, are included in assessments of medical knowledge because they allow educators to measure students' ability to think, reason, solve complex problems, communicate and collaborate through their use of writing. However, constructed-response tasks are also costly to administer and challenging to score because they rely on human raters. One alternative to the manual scoring process is to integrate computer technology with writing assessment. The process of scoring written responses using computer programs is known as 'automated essay scoring' (AES). METHODS: An AES system uses a computer program that builds a scoring model by extracting linguistic features from a constructed-response prompt that has been pre-scored by human raters and then, using machine learning algorithms, maps the linguistic features to the human scores so that the computer can be used to classify (i.e. score or grade) the responses of a new group of students. The accuracy of the score classification can be evaluated using different measures of agreement. RESULTS: Automated essay scoring provides a method for scoring constructed-response tests that complements the current use of selected-response testing in medical education. The method can serve medical educators by providing the summative scores required for high-stakes testing. It can also serve medical students by providing them with detailed feedback as part of a formative assessment process. CONCLUSIONS: Automated essay scoring systems yield scores that consistently agree with those of human raters at a level as high, if not higher, as the level of agreement among human raters themselves. The system offers medical educators many benefits for scoring constructed-response tasks, such as improving the consistency of scoring, reducing the time required for scoring and reporting, minimising the costs of scoring, and providing students with immediate feedback on constructed-response tasks.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.195
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.195
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.382 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207