How Well Can You Articulate that Idea? Insights from Automated Formative Assessment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.11682v1
• Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 18:27:59 GMT
• Title: How Well Can You Articulate that Idea? Insights from Automated Formative Assessment
• Authors: Mahsa Sheikhi Karizaki, Dana Gnesdilow, Sadhana Puntambekar, Rebecca J. Passonneau,
• Abstract summary: We investigate automated feedback on students' science explanation essays. We find that the main ideas in the rubric differ with respect to how much freedom they afford in explanations. By tracing the automated decision process, we can diagnose when a student's statement lacks sufficient clarity.
• Score: 2.2124180701409233
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Automated methods are becoming increasingly integrated into studies of formative feedback on students' science explanation writing. Most of this work, however, addresses students' responses to short answer questions. We investigate automated feedback on students' science explanation essays, where students must articulate multiple ideas. Feedback is based on a rubric that identifies the main ideas students are prompted to include in explanatory essays about the physics of energy and mass, given their experiments with a simulated roller coaster. We have found that students generally improve on revised versions of their essays. Here, however, we focus on two factors that affect the accuracy of the automated feedback. First, we find that the main ideas in the rubric differ with respect to how much freedom they afford in explanations of the idea, thus explanation of a natural law is relatively constrained. Students have more freedom in how they explain complex relations they observe in their roller coasters, such as transfer of different forms of energy. Second, by tracing the automated decision process, we can diagnose when a student's statement lacks sufficient clarity for the automated tool to associate it more strongly with one of the main ideas above all others. This in turn provides an opportunity for teachers and peers to help students reflect on how to state their ideas more clearly.

Related papers

• Automatic Feedback Generation for Short Answer Questions using Answer Diagnostic Graphs [21.965223446869064]
  Short-reading comprehension questions help students understand text structure but lack effective feedback. Students struggle to identify and correct errors, while manual feedback creation is labor-intensive. We propose a system that generates feedback for student responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-27T04:49:10Z)
• "My Grade is Wrong!": A Contestable AI Framework for Interactive Feedback in Evaluating Student Essays [6.810086342993699]
  This paper introduces CAELF, a Contestable AI Empowered LLM Framework for automating interactive feedback. CAELF allows students to query, challenge, and clarify their feedback by integrating a multi-agent system with computational argumentation. A case study on 500 critical thinking essays with user studies demonstrates that CAELF significantly improves interactive feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T17:59:01Z)
• The end of multiple choice tests: using AI to enhance assessment [0.0]
  Using research based distractors (wrong answers) are intrinsically limited in the insights they provide. To address these limitations, we recommend asking students to explain why they chose their answer. Using a discipline-trained artificial intelligence-based bot it is possible to analyze their explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T17:24:30Z)
• Distilling Reasoning Ability from Large Language Models with Adaptive Thinking [54.047761094420174]
  Chain of thought finetuning (cot-finetuning) aims to endow small language models (SLM) with reasoning ability to improve their performance towards specific tasks. Most existing cot-finetuning methods adopt a pre-thinking mechanism, allowing the SLM to generate a rationale before providing an answer. This mechanism enables SLM to analyze and think about complex questions, but it also makes answer correctness highly sensitive to minor errors in rationale. We propose a robust post-thinking mechanism to generate answers before rationale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-14T07:19:27Z)
• Scalable Two-Minute Feedback: Digital, Lecture-Accompanying Survey as a Continuous Feedback Instrument [0.0]
  Detailed feedback on courses and lecture content is essential for their improvement and also serves as a tool for reflection. The article used a digital survey format as formative feedback which attempts to measure student stress in a quantitative part and to address the participants' reflection in a qualitative part. The results show a low, but constant rate of feedback. Responses mostly cover topics of the lecture content or organizational aspects and were intensively used to report issues within the lecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T08:14:26Z)
• 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)
• Can Language Models Teach Weaker Agents? Teacher Explanations Improve Students via Personalization [84.86241161706911]
  We show that teacher LLMs can indeed intervene on student reasoning to improve their performance. We also demonstrate that in multi-turn interactions, teacher explanations generalize and learn from explained data. We verify that misaligned teachers can lower student performance to random chance by intentionally misleading them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T17:27:20Z)
• A literature survey on student feedback assessment tools and their usage in sentiment analysis [0.0]
  We evaluate the effectiveness of various in-class feedback assessment methods such as Kahoot!, Mentimeter, Padlet, and polling. We propose a sentiment analysis model for extracting the explicit suggestions from the students' qualitative feedback comments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-09T06:56:30Z)
• Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing? [89.50052670307434]
  We discuss the possibility of using state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models to generate first-pass peer reviews for scientific papers. We collect a dataset of papers in the machine learning domain, annotate them with different aspects of content covered in each review, and train targeted summarization models that take in papers to generate reviews. Comprehensive experimental results show that system-generated reviews tend to touch upon more aspects of the paper than human-written reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-30T07:16:53Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Explanations: How much do explanations from the teacher aid students? [103.05037537415811]
  We formalize the value of explanations using a student-teacher paradigm that measures the extent to which explanations improve student models in learning. Unlike many prior proposals to evaluate explanations, our approach cannot be easily gamed, enabling principled, scalable, and automatic evaluation of attributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-01T23:40:21Z)

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.