Automatic assessment of text-based responses in post-secondary education: A systematic review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.16151v2
• Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 03:00:06 GMT
• Title: Automatic assessment of text-based responses in post-secondary education: A systematic review
• Authors: Rujun Gao, Hillary E. Merzdorf, Saira Anwar, M. Cynthia Hipwell, Arun Srinivasa
• Abstract summary: There is immense potential to automate rapid assessment and feedback of text-based responses in education. To understand how text-based automatic assessment systems have been developed and applied in education in recent years, three research questions are considered. This systematic review provides an overview of recent educational applications of text-based assessment systems.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Text-based open-ended questions in academic formative and summative assessments help students become deep learners and prepare them to understand concepts for a subsequent conceptual assessment. However, grading text-based questions, especially in large courses, is tedious and time-consuming for instructors. Text processing models continue progressing with the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools and Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithms. Especially after breakthroughs in Large Language Models (LLM), there is immense potential to automate rapid assessment and feedback of text-based responses in education. This systematic review adopts a scientific and reproducible literature search strategy based on the PRISMA process using explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria to study text-based automatic assessment systems in post-secondary education, screening 838 papers and synthesizing 93 studies. To understand how text-based automatic assessment systems have been developed and applied in education in recent years, three research questions are considered. All included studies are summarized and categorized according to a proposed comprehensive framework, including the input and output of the system, research motivation, and research outcomes, aiming to answer the research questions accordingly. Additionally, the typical studies of automated assessment systems, research methods, and application domains in these studies are investigated and summarized. This systematic review provides an overview of recent educational applications of text-based assessment systems for understanding the latest AI/NLP developments assisting in text-based assessments in higher education. Findings will particularly benefit researchers and educators incorporating LLMs such as ChatGPT into their educational activities.

Related papers

• Could ChatGPT get an Engineering Degree? Evaluating Higher Education Vulnerability to AI Assistants [175.9723801486487]
  We evaluate whether two AI assistants, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, can adequately answer assessment questions. GPT-4 answers an average of 65.8% of questions correctly, and can even produce the correct answer across at least one prompting strategy for 85.1% of questions. Our results call for revising program-level assessment design in higher education in light of advances in generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T12:11:49Z)
• A Systematic Review of Generative AI for Teaching and Learning Practice [0.37282630026096586]
  There are no agreed guidelines towards the usage of GenAI systems in higher education. There is a need for additional interdisciplinary, multidimensional studies in HE through collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T18:16:27Z)
• SurveyAgent: A Conversational System for Personalized and Efficient Research Survey [50.04283471107001]
  This paper introduces SurveyAgent, a novel conversational system designed to provide personalized and efficient research survey assistance to researchers. SurveyAgent integrates three key modules: Knowledge Management for organizing papers, Recommendation for discovering relevant literature, and Query Answering for engaging with content on a deeper level. Our evaluation demonstrates SurveyAgent's effectiveness in streamlining research activities, showcasing its capability to facilitate how researchers interact with scientific literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T15:01:51Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [58.6354685593418]
  This paper proposes several article-level, field-normalized, and large language model-empowered bibliometric indicators to evaluate reviews. The newly emerging AI-generated literature reviews are also appraised. This work offers insights into the current challenges of literature reviews and envisions future directions for their development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• Artificial intelligence to automate the systematic review of scientific literature [0.0]
  We present a survey of AI techniques proposed in the last 15 years to help researchers conduct systematic analyses of scientific literature. We describe the tasks currently supported, the types of algorithms applied, and available tools proposed in 34 primary studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T19:12:49Z)
• Practical and Ethical Challenges of Large Language Models in Education: A Systematic Scoping Review [5.329514340780243]
  Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to automate the laborious process of generating and analysing textual content. There are concerns regarding the practicality and ethicality of these innovations. We conducted a systematic scoping review of 118 peer-reviewed papers published since 2017 to pinpoint the current state of research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-17T18:14:46Z)
• A Review of the Trends and Challenges in Adopting Natural Language Processing Methods for Education Feedback Analysis [4.040584701067227]
  Machine learning, deep learning, and natural language processing (NLP) are subsets of AI to tackle different areas of data processing and modelling. This review article presents an overview of AI impact on education outlining with current opportunities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-20T23:38:58Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)
• Text similarity analysis for evaluation of descriptive answers [0.0]
  This paper proposes a text analysis based automated approach for automatic evaluation of the descriptive answers in an examination. In this architecture, the examiner creates a sample answer sheet for given sets of question. By using the concept of text summarization, text semantics and keywords summarization, the final score for each answer is calculated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-06T20:19:58Z)
• A Review of Uncertainty Quantification in Deep Learning: Techniques, Applications and Challenges [76.20963684020145]
  Uncertainty quantification (UQ) plays a pivotal role in reduction of uncertainties during both optimization and decision making processes. Bizarre approximation and ensemble learning techniques are two most widely-used UQ methods in the literature. This study reviews recent advances in UQ methods used in deep learning and investigates the application of these methods in reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-12T06:41:05Z)
• Evaluation of Text Generation: A Survey [107.62760642328455]
  The paper surveys evaluation methods of natural language generation systems that have been developed in the last few years. We group NLG evaluation methods into three categories: (1) human-centric evaluation metrics, (2) automatic metrics that require no training, and (3) machine-learned metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-26T04:52:48Z)

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.