Conversation-Based Assessments in Education: Design, Implementation, and Cognitive Walkthroughs for Usability Testing
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
Conversational agents have been widely used in education to support student learning. There have been recent attempts to design and use conversational agents to conduct assessments (i.e., conversation-based assessments: CBA). In this study, we developed CBA with constructed and selected-response tests using Rasa—an artificial intelligence-based tool. CBA was deployed via Google Chat to support formative assessment. We evaluated (1) its performance in answering students’ responses and (2) its usability with cognitive walkthroughs conducted by external evaluators. CBA with constructed-response tests consistently matched student responses to the appropriate conversation paths in most cases. In comparison, CBA with selected-response tests demonstrated perfect accuracy between system design and implementation. A cognitive walkthrough of CBA showed its usability as well as several potential issues that could be improved. Participating students did not experience these issues, however, we reported them to help researchers, designers, and practitioners improve the assessment experience for students using CBA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it