Review of feedback in Automated Essay Scoring

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.05553v1
• Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 11:04:13 GMT
• Title: Review of feedback in Automated Essay Scoring
• Authors: You-Jin Jong, Yong-Jin Kim, Ok-Chol Ri
• Abstract summary: The first automated essay scoring system was developed 50 years ago. This paper reviews research on feedback including different feedback types and essay traits on automated essay scoring.
• Score: 6.445605125467574
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The first automated essay scoring system was developed 50 years ago. Automated essay scoring systems are developing into systems with richer functions than the previous simple scoring systems. Its purpose is not only to score essays but also as a learning tool to improve the writing skill of users. Feedback is the most important aspect of making an automated essay scoring system useful in real life. The importance of feedback was already emphasized in the first AES system. This paper reviews research on feedback including different feedback types and essay traits on automated essay scoring. We also reviewed the latest case studies of the automated essay scoring system that provides feedback.

Related papers

• Hey AI Can You Grade My Essay?: Automatic Essay Grading [1.03590082373586]
  We introduce a new model that outperforms the state-of-the-art models in the field of automatic essay grading (AEG) We have used the concept of collaborative and transfer learning, where one network will be responsible for checking the grammatical and structural features of the sentences of an essay while another network is responsible for scoring the overall idea present in the essay. Our proposed model has shown the highest accuracy of 85.50%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-12T01:17:55Z)
• Automatic Essay Multi-dimensional Scoring with Fine-tuning and Multiple Regression [27.152245569974678]
  We develop two models that automatically score English essays across multiple dimensions. Our systems achieve impressive performance in evaluation using three criteria: precision, F1 score, and Quadratic Weighted Kappa.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T10:59:50Z)
• Neural Automated Writing Evaluation with Corrective Feedback [4.0230668961961085]
  We propose an integrated system for automated writing evaluation with corrective feedback. This system enables language learners to simulate the essay writing tests. It would also alleviate the burden of manually correcting innumerable essays.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T15:42:33Z)
• PapagAI:Automated Feedback for Reflective Essays [48.4434976446053]
  We present the first open-source automated feedback tool based on didactic theory and implemented as a hybrid AI system. The main objective of our work is to enable better learning outcomes for students and to complement the teaching activities of lecturers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-10T11:05:51Z)
• AI, write an essay for me: A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays [66.36541161082856]
  ChatGPT and similar generative AI models have attracted hundreds of millions of users. This study compares human-written versus ChatGPT-generated argumentative student essays.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-24T12:58:28Z)
• Cognitively Aided Zero-Shot Automatic Essay Grading [25.772899595946416]
  We describe a solution to the problem of zero-shot automatic essay grading, using cognitive information, in the form of gaze behaviour. Our experiments show that using gaze behaviour helps in improving the performance of AEG systems, especially when we provide a new essay written in response to a new prompt for scoring, by an average of almost 5 percentage points of QWK.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-22T18:41:59Z)
• Many Hands Make Light Work: Using Essay Traits to Automatically Score Essays [41.851075178681015]
  We describe a way to score essays holistically using a multi-task learning (MTL) approach. We compare our results with a single-task learning (STL) approach, using both LSTMs and BiLSTMs. We find that MTL-based BiLSTM system gives the best results for scoring the essay holistically, as well as performing well on scoring the essay traits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-01T11:31:09Z)
• My Teacher Thinks The World Is Flat! Interpreting Automatic Essay Scoring Mechanism [71.34160809068996]
  Recent work shows that automated scoring systems are prone to even common-sense adversarial samples. We utilize recent advances in interpretability to find the extent to which features such as coherence, content and relevance are important for automated scoring mechanisms. We also find that since the models are not semantically grounded with world-knowledge and common sense, adding false facts such as the world is flat'' actually increases the score instead of decreasing it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-27T06:19:20Z)
• Get It Scored Using AutoSAS -- An Automated System for Scoring Short Answers [63.835172924290326]
  We present a fast, scalable, and accurate approach towards automated Short Answer Scoring (SAS) We propose and explain the design and development of a system for SAS, namely AutoSAS. AutoSAS shows state-of-the-art performance and achieves better results by over 8% in some of the question prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-21T10:47:30Z)
• Improving Conversational Question Answering Systems after Deployment using Feedback-Weighted Learning [69.42679922160684]
  We propose feedback-weighted learning based on importance sampling to improve upon an initial supervised system using binary user feedback. Our work opens the prospect to exploit interactions with real users and improve conversational systems after deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-01T19:50:34Z)
• Evaluation Toolkit For Robustness Testing Of Automatic Essay Scoring Systems [64.4896118325552]
  We evaluate the current state-of-the-art AES models using a model adversarial evaluation scheme and associated metrics. We find that AES models are highly overstable. Even heavy modifications(as much as 25%) with content unrelated to the topic of the questions do not decrease the score produced by the models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T03:49:43Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.