Computer Science Meets Education: Natural Language Processing for Automatic Grading of Open-Ended Questions in eBooks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated how Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithms could automatically grade answers to open-ended inference questions in web-based eBooks. This is a component of research on making reading more motivating to children and to increasing their comprehension. We obtained and graded a set of answers to open-ended questions embedded in a fiction novel written in English. Computer science students used a subset of the graded answers to develop algorithms designed to grade new answers to the questions. The algorithms utilized the story text, existing graded answers for a given question and publicly accessible databases in grading new responses. A computer science professor used another subset of the graded answers to evaluate the students’ NLP algorithms and to select the best algorithm. The results showed that the best algorithm correctly graded approximately 85% of the real-world answers as correct, partly correct, or wrong. The best NLP algorithm was trained with questions and graded answers from a series of new text narratives in another language, Slovenian. The resulting NLP algorithm model was successfully used in fourth-grade language arts classes for providing feedback to student answers on open-ended questions in eBooks.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it