An official website of the United States government
As use of artificial intelligence (AI) has increased, concerns about AI bias and discrimination have been growing. This paper discusses an application called PyrEval in which natural language processing (NLP) was used to automate assessment and pro- vide feedback on middle school science writing with- out linguistic discrimination. Linguistic discrimination in this study was operationalized as unfair assess- ment of scientific essays based on writing features that are not considered normative such as subject- verb disagreement. Such unfair assessment is espe- cially problematic when the purpose of assessment is not assessing English writing but rather assessing the content of scientific explanations. PyrEval was implemented in middle school science classrooms. Students explained their roller coaster design by stat- ing relationships among such science concepts as potential energy, kinetic energy and law of conser- vation of energy. Initial and revised versions of sci- entific essays written by 307 eighth- grade students were analyzed. Our manual and NLP assessment comparison analysis showed that PyrEval did not pe- nalize student essays that contained non-normative writing features. Repeated measures ANOVAs and GLMM analysis results revealed that essay quality significantly improved from initial to revised essays after receiving the NLP feedback, regardless of non- normative writing features. Findings and implications are discussed.
more »
« less
NLP ‐enabled automated assessment of scientific explanations: Towards eliminating linguistic discrimination
Abstract As use of artificial intelligence (AI) has increased, concerns about AI bias and discrimination have been growing. This paper discusses an application called PyrEval in which natural language processing (NLP) was used to automate assessment and provide feedback on middle school science writing without linguistic discrimination. Linguistic discrimination in this study was operationalized as unfair assessment of scientific essays based on writing features that are not considered normative such as subject‐verb disagreement. Such unfair assessment is especially problematic when the purpose of assessment is not assessing English writing but rather assessing the content of scientific explanations. PyrEval was implemented in middle school science classrooms. Students explained their roller coaster design by stating relationships among such science concepts as potential energy, kinetic energy and law of conservation of energy. Initial and revised versions of scientific essays written by 307 eighth‐grade students were analyzed. Our manual and NLP assessment comparison analysis showed that PyrEval did not penalize student essays that contained non‐normative writing features. Repeated measures ANOVAs and GLMM analysis results revealed that essay quality significantly improved from initial to revised essays after receiving the NLP feedback, regardless of non‐normative writing features. Findings and implications are discussed. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicAdvancement in AI has created a variety of opportunities in education, including automated assessment, but AI is not bias‐free.Automated writing assessment designed to improve students' scientific explanations has been studied.While limited, some studies reported biased performance of automated writing assessment tools, but without looking into actual linguistic features about which the tools may have discriminated.What this paper addsThis study conducted an actual examination of non‐normative linguistic features in essays written by middle school students to uncover how our NLP tool called PyrEval worked to assess them.PyrEval did not penalize essays containing non‐normative linguistic features.Regardless of non‐normative linguistic features, students' essay quality scores significantly improved from initial to revised essays after receiving feedback from PyrEval. Essay quality improvement was observed regardless of students' prior knowledge, school district and teacher variables.Implications for practice and/or policyThis paper inspires practitioners to attend to linguistic discrimination (re)produced by AI.This paper offers possibilities of using PyrEval as a reflection tool, to which human assessors compare their assessment and discover implicit bias against non‐normative linguistic features.PyrEval is available for use ongithub.com/psunlpgroup/PyrEvalv2.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2010351
- PAR ID:
- 10644909
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley-Blackwell
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- British Journal of Educational Technology
- ISSN:
- 0007-1013
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
As use of artificial intelligence (AI) has increased, concerns about AI bias and discrimination have been growing. This paper discusses an application called PyrEval in which natural language processing (NLP) was used to automate assessment and pro- vide feedback on middle school science writing with- out linguistic discrimination. Linguistic discrimination in this study was operationalized as unfair assess- ment of scientific essays based on writing features that are not considered normative such as subject- verb disagreement. Such unfair assessment is espe- cially problematic when the purpose of assessment is not assessing English writing but rather assessing the content of scientific explanations. PyrEval was implemented in middle school science classrooms. Students explained their roller coaster design by stat- ing relationships among such science concepts as potential energy, kinetic energy and law of conser- vation of energy. Initial and revised versions of sci- entific essays written by 307 eighth- grade students were analyzed. Our manual and NLP assessment comparison analysis showed that PyrEval did not pe- nalize student essays that contained non-normative writing features. Repeated measures ANOVAs and GLMM analysis results revealed that essay quality significantly improved from initial to revised essays after receiving the NLP feedback, regardless of non- normative writing features. Findings and implications are discussed.more » « less
-
Hoadley, C; Wang, XC (Ed.)Eighth grade students received automated feedback from PyrEval - an NLP tool - about their science essays. We examined essay quality change when revised. Regardless of prior physics knowledge, essay quality improved. Grounded in literature on AI explainability and trust in automated feedback, we also examined which PyrEval explanation predicted essay quality change. Essay quality improvement was predicted by high- and medium-accuracy feedback.more » « less
-
In principle, educators can use writing to scaffold students’ understanding of increasingly complex science ideas. In practice, formative assessment of students’ science writing is very labor intensive. We present PyrEval+CR, an automated tool for formative assessment of middle school students’ science essays. It identifies each idea in a student’s science essay, and its importance in the curriculum.more » « less
-
Hoadley, C; Wang, XC (Ed.)Helping students learn how to write is essential. However, students have few opportunities to develop this skill, since giving timely feedback is difficult for teachers. AI applications can provide quick feedback on students’ writing. But, ensuring accurate assessment can be challenging, since students’ writing quality can vary. We examined the impact of students’ writing quality on the error rate of our natural language processing (NLP) system when assessing scientific content in initial and revised design essays. We also explored whether aspects of writing quality were linked to the number of NLP errors. Despite finding that students’ revised essays were significantly different from their initial essays in a few ways, our NLP systems’ accuracy was similar. Further, our multiple regression analyses showed, overall, that students’ writing quality did not impact our NLP systems’ accuracy. This is promising in terms of ensuring students with different writing skills get similarly accurate feedback.more » « less
