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
Employing automatic analysis tools aligned to learning progressions to assess knowledge application and support learning in STEM
We discuss transforming STEM education using three aspects: learning progressions (LPs), constructed response performance assessments, and artificial intelligence (AI). Using LPs to inform instruction, curriculum, and assessment design helps foster students’ ability to apply content and practices to explain phenomena, which reflects deeper science understanding. To measure the progress along these LPs, performance assessments combining elements of disciplinary ideas, crosscutting concepts and practices are needed. However, these tasks are time-consuming and expensive to score and provide feedback for. Artificial intelligence (AI) allows to validate the LPs and evaluate performance assessments for many students quickly and efficiently. The evaluation provides a report describing student progress along LP and the supports needed to attain a higher LP level. We suggest using unsupervised, semi-supervised ML and generative AI (GAI) at early LP validation stages to identify relevant proficiency patterns and start building an LP. We further suggest employing supervised ML and GAI for developing targeted LP-aligned performance assessment for more accurate performance diagnosis at advanced LP validation stages. Finally, we discuss employing AI for designing automatic feedback systems for providing personalized feedback to students and helping teachers implement LP-based learning. We discuss the challenges of realizing these tasks and propose future research avenues.
more » « less- PAR ID:
- 10554278
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer Science + Business Media
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- International Journal of STEM Education
- Volume:
- 11
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2196-7822
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
more » « less
Abstract Argumentation, a key scientific practice presented in the
Framework for K-12 Science Education , requires students to construct and critique arguments, but timely evaluation of arguments in large-scale classrooms is challenging. Recent work has shown the potential of automated scoring systems for open response assessments, leveraging machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) to aid the scoring of written arguments in complex assessments. Moreover, research has amplified that the features (i.e., complexity, diversity, and structure) of assessment construct are critical to ML scoring accuracy, yet how the assessment construct may be associated with machine scoring accuracy remains unknown. This study investigated how the features associated with the assessment construct of a scientific argumentation assessment item affected machine scoring performance. Specifically, we conceptualized the construct in three dimensions: complexity, diversity, and structure. We employed human experts to code characteristics of the assessment tasks and score middle school student responses to 17 argumentation tasks aligned to three levels of a validated learning progression of scientific argumentation. We randomly selected 361 responses to use as training sets to build machine-learning scoring models for each item. The scoring models yielded a range of agreements with human consensus scores, measured by Cohen’s kappa (mean = 0.60; range 0.38 − 0.89), indicating good to almost perfect performance. We found that higher levels ofComplexity andDiversity of the assessment task were associated with decreased model performance, similarly the relationship between levels ofStructure and model performance showed a somewhat negative linear trend. These findings highlight the importance of considering these construct characteristics when developing ML models for scoring assessments, particularly for higher complexity items and multidimensional assessments. -
more » « less
Abstract In response to Li, Reigh, He, and Miller's commentary,
Can we and should we use artificial intelligence for formative assessment in science , we argue that artificial intelligence (AI) is already being widely employed in formative assessment across various educational contexts. While agreeing with Li et al.'s call for further studies on equity issues related to AI, we emphasize the need for science educators to adapt to the AI revolution that has outpaced the research community. We challenge the somewhat restrictive view of formative assessment presented by Li et al., highlighting the significant contributions of AI in providing formative feedback to students, assisting teachers in assessment practices, and aiding in instructional decisions. We contend that AI‐generated scores should not be equated with the entirety of formative assessment practice; no single assessment tool can capture all aspects of student thinking and backgrounds. We address concerns raised by Li et al. regarding AI bias and emphasize the importance of empirical testing and evidence‐based arguments in referring to bias. We assert that AI‐based formative assessment does not necessarily lead to inequity and can, in fact, contribute to more equitable educational experiences. Furthermore, we discuss how AI can facilitate the diversification of representational modalities in assessment practices and highlight the potential benefits of AI in saving teachers’ time and providing them with valuable assessment information. We call for a shift in perspective, from viewing AI as a problem to be solved to recognizing its potential as a collaborative tool in education. We emphasize the need for future research to focus on the effective integration of AI in classrooms, teacher education, and the development of AI systems that can adapt to diverse teaching and learning contexts. We conclude by underlining the importance of addressing AI bias, understanding its implications, and developing guidelines for best practices in AI‐based formative assessment. -
Recent years have seen the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in every facet of society. The ubiquity of AI has led to an increasing demand to integrate AI learning experiences into K-12 education. Early learning experiences incorporating AI concepts and practices are critical for students to better understand, evaluate, and utilize AI technologies. AI planning is an important class of AI technologies in which an AI-driven agent utilizes the structure of a problem to construct plans of actions to perform a task. Although a growing number of efforts have explored promoting AI education for K-12 learners, limited work has investigated effective and engaging approaches for delivering AI learning experiences to elementary students. In this paper, we propose a visual interface to enable upper elementary students (grades 3-5, ages 8-11) to formulate AI planning tasks within a game-based learning environment. We present our approach to designing the visual interface as well as how the AI planning tasks are embedded within narrative-centered gameplay structured around a Use-Modify-Create scaffolding progression. Further, we present results from a qualitative study of upper elementary students using the visual interface. We discuss how the Use-Modify-Create approach supported student learning as well as discuss the misconceptions and usability issues students encountered while using the visual interface to formulate AI planning tasks.more » « less
-
This is a contribution to a Symposium This symposium will provide opportunities for discussion about how Artificial Intelligence can support ambitious learning practices in CSCL. To the extent that CSCL can be a lever for educational equitable educational change, AI needs to be able to support the kinds of practices that afford agency to students and teachers. However, AI also brings to the fore the need to consider equity and ethics. This interactive session will provide opportunities to discuss these issues in the context of the examples presented here. Our contribution is focused on two participatory design studies we conducted with 14 teachers to understand the kinds of automatic feedback they thought would support their students’ science explanation writing as well as how they would like summaries of information from students’ writing presented in a teacher’s dashboard. We also discuss how we developed our system, PyrEval, for automated writing support based on historical data and scoring from manual coding rubrics.more » « less
