MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309232742 · doi:10.21449/ijate.1124382

Automatic story and item generation for reading comprehension assessments with transformers

2022· article· en· W4309232742 on OpenAlexafffund
Okan Bulut, Seyma N. Yildirim‐Erbasli

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Assessment Tools in Education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of EdmontonUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsFluencyReading comprehensionComputer scienceComprehensionLiteracyReading (process)Mathematics educationMultimediaPsychologyPedagogyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reading comprehension is one of the essential skills for students as they make a transition from learning to read to reading to learn. Over the last decade, the increased use of digital learning materials for promoting literacy skills (e.g., oral fluency and reading comprehension) in K-12 classrooms has been a boon for teachers. However, instant access to reading materials, as well as relevant assessment tools for evaluating students’ comprehension skills, remains to be a problem. Teachers must spend many hours looking for suitable materials for their students because high-quality reading materials and assessments are primarily available through commercial literacy programs and websites. This study proposes a promising solution to this problem by employing an artificial intelligence (AI) approach. We demonstrate how to use advanced language models (e.g., OpenAI’s GPT-2 and Google’s T5) to automatically generate reading passages and items. Our preliminary findings suggest that with additional training and fine-tuning, open-source language models could be used to support the instruction and assessment of reading comprehension skills in the classroom. For both automatic story and item generation, the language models performed reasonably; however, the outcomes of these language models still require a human evaluation and further adjustments before sharing them with students. Practical implications of the findings and future research directions are discussed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations30
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Assessment Tools in EducationSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207