Argumentation is fundamental to science education, both as a prominent feature of scientific reasoning and as an effective mode of learning—a perspective reflected in contemporary frameworks and standards. The successful implementation of argumentation in school science, however, requires a paradigm shift in science assessment from the measurement of knowledge and understanding to the measurement of performance and knowledge in use. Performance tasks requiring argumentation must capture the many ways students can construct and evaluate arguments in science, yet such tasks are both expensive and resource‐intensive to score. In this study we explore how machine learning text classification techniques can be applied to develop efficient, valid, and accurate constructed‐response measures of students' competency with written scientific argumentation that are aligned with a validated argumentation learning progression. Data come from 933 middle school students in the San Francisco Bay Area and are based on three sets of argumentation items in three different science contexts. The findings demonstrate that we have been able to develop computer scoring models that can achieve substantial to almost perfect agreement between human‐assigned and computer‐predicted scores. Model performance was slightly weaker for harder items targeting higher levels of the learning progression, largely due to the linguistic complexity of these responses and the sparsity of higher‐level responses in the training data set. Comparing the efficacy of different scoring approaches revealed that breaking down students' arguments into multiple components (e.g., the presence of an accurate claim or providing sufficient evidence), developing computer models for each component, and combining scores from these analytic components into a holistic score produced better results than holistic scoring approaches. However, this analytical approach was found to be differentially biased when scoring responses from English learners (EL) students as compared to responses from non‐EL students on some items. Differences in the severity between human and computer scores for EL between these approaches are explored, and potential sources of bias in automated scoring are discussed.
Argumentation, a key scientific practice presented in the
- Award ID(s):
- 2200757
- PAR ID:
- 10480435
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer Science + Business Media
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
- ISSN:
- 1560-4292
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
Involving students in scientific modeling practice is one of the most effective approaches to achieving the next generation science education learning goals. Given the complexity and multirepresentational features of scientific models, scoring student-developed models is time- and cost-intensive, remaining one of the most challenging assessment practices for science education. More importantly, teachers who rely on timely feedback to plan and adjust instruction are reluctant to use modeling tasks because they could not provide timely feedback to learners. This study utilized machine learn- ing (ML), the most advanced artificial intelligence (AI), to develop an approach to automatically score student- drawn models and their written descriptions of those models. We developed six modeling assessment tasks for middle school students that integrate disciplinary core ideas and crosscutting concepts with the modeling practice. For each task, we asked students to draw a model and write a description of that model, which gave students with diverse backgrounds an opportunity to represent their understanding in multiple ways. We then collected student responses to the six tasks and had human experts score a subset of those responses. We used the human-scored student responses to develop ML algorithmic models (AMs) and to train the computer. Validation using new data suggests that the machine-assigned scores achieved robust agreements with human consent scores. Qualitative analysis of student-drawn models further revealed five characteristics that might impact machine scoring accuracy: Alternative expression, confusing label, inconsistent size, inconsistent position, and redundant information. We argue that these five characteristics should be considered when developing machine-scorable modeling tasks.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract This study develops a framework to conceptualize the use and evolution of machine learning (ML) in science assessment. We systematically reviewed 47 studies that applied ML in science assessment and classified them into five categories: (a) constructed response, (b) essay, (c) simulation, (d) educational game, and (e) inter‐discipline. We compared the ML‐based and conventional science assessments and extracted 12 critical characteristics to map three variables in a three‐dimensional framework:
construct ,functionality , andautomaticity . The 12 characteristics used to construct a profile for ML‐based science assessments for each article were further analyzed by a two‐step cluster analysis. The clusters identified for each variable were summarized into four levels to illustrate the evolution of each. We further conducted cluster analysis to identify four classes of assessment across the three variables. Based on the analysis, we conclude that ML has transformed—but notyet redefined—conventional science assessment practice in terms of fundamental purpose, the nature of the science assessment, and the relevant assessment challenges. Along with the three‐dimensional framework, we propose five anticipated trends for incorporating ML in science assessment practice for future studies: addressing developmental cognition, changing the process of educational decision making, personalized science learning, borrowing 'good' to advance 'good', and integrating knowledge from other disciplines into science assessment. -
null (Ed.)Abstract We systematically compared two coding approaches to generate training datasets for machine learning (ML): (i) a holistic approach based on learning progression levels and (ii) a dichotomous, analytic approach of multiple concepts in student reasoning, deconstructed from holistic rubrics. We evaluated four constructed response assessment items for undergraduate physiology, each targeting five levels of a developing flux learning progression in an ion context. Human-coded datasets were used to train two ML models: (i) an 8-classification algorithm ensemble implemented in the Constructed Response Classifier (CRC), and (ii) a single classification algorithm implemented in LightSide Researcher’s Workbench. Human coding agreement on approximately 700 student responses per item was high for both approaches with Cohen’s kappas ranging from 0.75 to 0.87 on holistic scoring and from 0.78 to 0.89 on analytic composite scoring. ML model performance varied across items and rubric type. For two items, training sets from both coding approaches produced similarly accurate ML models, with differences in Cohen’s kappa between machine and human scores of 0.002 and 0.041. For the other items, ML models trained with analytic coded responses and used for a composite score, achieved better performance as compared to using holistic scores for training, with increases in Cohen’s kappa of 0.043 and 0.117. These items used a more complex scenario involving movement of two ions. It may be that analytic coding is beneficial to unpacking this additional complexity.more » « less
-
Rapid advancements in computing have enabled automatic analyses of written texts created in educational settings. The purpose of this symposium is to survey several applications of computerized text analyses used in the research and development of productive learning environments. Four featured research projects have developed or been working on (1) equitable automated scoring models for scientific argumentation for English Language Learners, (2) a real-time, adjustable formative assessment system to promote student revision of uncertaintyinfused scientific arguments, (3) a web-based annotation tool to support student revision of scientific essays, and (4) a new research methodology that analyzes teacher-produced text in online professional development courses. These projects will provide unique insights towards assessment and research opportunities associated with a variety of computerized text analysis approaches.more » « less
