Bayesian Mixed Effects Model and Data Visualization for Understanding Item Response Time and Response Order in Open Online Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open (open-book) online assessment has become a great tool in higher education, which is frequently used for monitoring learning progress and teaching effectiveness. It has been gaining popularity because it is flexible to use and makes response behavior data available for researchers to study response processes. However, some challenges are encountered in analyzing these data, such as how to handle outlying response time, how to make use of the information from item response order, how item response time, response order and item scores are related, and how to help classroom teachers quickly check whether student responses are aligned with the design of the assessment. The purposes of this study are 3-fold: (1) to provide a solution for handling outlying response times due to the design of open online formative assessments (i.e., ample or unrestricted testing time), (2) to propose a new measure for investigating the item response order, and (3) to discuss two analytical approaches that are useful for studying response behaviors–data visualization and the Bayesian generalized linear mixed effects model (B-GLMM). An application of these two approaches is illustrated using open online quiz data. Our findings obtained from B-GLMM showed that item response order was related to item response time, but not to item scores; and item response time was related to item scores, but its effects were moderated by the cognitive level. Additionally, the findings from both B-GLMM and data visualization were consistent, which assisted instructors to see the alignment of student responses with the assessment design.
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 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 | 0.014 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".