MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3192525318 · doi:10.20381/ruor-23341

Towards the Automatic Classification of Student Answers to Open-ended Questions

2019· dissertation· en· W3192525318 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alvarado Mantecon

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematics educationComputer scienceClosed-ended questionInformation retrievalNatural language processingPsychologyData scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main research challenges nowadays in the context of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is the automation of the evaluation process of text-based assessments effectively. Text-based assessments, such as essay writing, have been proved to be better indicators of higher level of understanding than machine-scored assessments (E.g. Multiple Choice Questions). Nonetheless, due to the rapid growth of MOOCs, text-based evaluation has become a difficult task for human markers, creating the need of automated systems for grading. In this thesis, we focus on the automated short answer grading task (ASAG), which automatically assesses natural language answers to open-ended questions into correct and incorrect classes. We propose an ensemble supervised machine learning approach that relies on two types of classifiers: a response-based classifier, which centers around feature extraction from available responses, and a reference-based classifier which considers the relationships between responses, model answers and questions. For each classifier, we explored a set of features based on words and entities. For the response-based classifier, we tested and compared 5 features: traditional n-gram models, entity URIs (Uniform Resource Identifier) and entity mentions both extracted using a semantic annotation API, entity mention embeddings based on GloVe and entity URI embeddings extracted from Wikipedia. For the reference-based classifier, we explored fourteen features: cosine similarity between sentence embeddings from student answers and model answers, number of overlapping elements (words, entity URI, entity mention) between student answers and model answers or question text, Jaccard similarity coefficient between student answers and model answers or question text (based on words, entity URI or entity mentions) and a sentence embedding representation. We evaluated our classifiers on three datasets, two of which belong to the SemEval ASAG competition (Dzikovska et al., 2013). Our results show that, in general, reference-based features perform much better than response-based features in terms of accuracy and macro average f1-score. Within the reference-based approach, we observe that the use of S6 embedding representation, which considers question text, student and model answer, generated the best performing models. Nonetheless, their combination with other similarity features helped build more accurate classifiers. As for response-based classifiers, models based on traditional n-gram features remained the best models. Finally, we combined our best reference-based and response-based classifiers using an ensemble learning model. Our ensemble classifiers combining both approaches achieved the best results for one of the evaluation datasets, but underperformed on the remaining two. We also compared the best two classifiers with some of the main state-of-the-art results on the SemEval competition. Our final embedded meta-classifier outperformed the top-ranking result on the SemEval Beetle dataset and our top classifier on SemEval SciEntBank, trained on reference-based features, obtained the 2nd position. In conclusion, the reference-based approach, powered mainly by sentence level embeddings and other similarity features, proved to generate the most efficient models in two out of three datasets and the ensemble model was the best on the SemEval Beetle dataset.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207