Search for: All records

Teachers often rely on the use of a range of open-ended problems to assess students' understanding of mathematical concepts. Beyond traditional conceptions of student open-ended work, commonly in the form of textual short-answer or essay responses, the use of figures, tables, number lines, graphs, and pictographs are other examples of open-ended work common in mathematics. While recent developments in areas of natural language processing and machine learning have led to automated methods to score student open-ended work, these methods have largely been limited to textual answers. Several computer-based learning systems allow students to take pictures of hand-written work and include such images within their answers to open-ended questions. With that, however, there are few-to-no existing solutions that support the auto-scoring of student hand-written or drawn answers to questions. In this work, we build upon an existing method for auto-scoring textual student answers and explore the use of OpenAI/CLIP, a deep learning embedding method designed to represent both images and text, as well as Optical Character Recognition (OCR) to improve model performance. We evaluate the performance of our method on a dataset of student open-responses that contains both text- and image-based responses, and find a reduction of model error in the presence of images when controlling for other answer-level features. 

Feedback is a crucial factor in mathematics learning and instruction. Whether expressed as indicators of correctness or textual comments, feedback can help guide students’ understanding of content. Beyond this, however, teacher-written messages and comments can provide motivational and affective benefits for students. The question emerges as to what constitutes effective feedback to promote not only student learning but also motivation and engagement. Teachers may have different perceptions of what constitutes effective feedback utilizing different tones in their writing to communicate their sentiment while assessing student work. This study aims to investigate trends in teacher sentiment and tone when providing feedback to students in a middle school mathematics class context. Toward this, we examine the applicability of state-of-the-art sentiment analysis methods in a mathematics context and explore the use of punctuation marks in teacher feedback messages as a measure of tone. 

Teachers often rely on the use of a range of open-ended problems to assess students’ understanding of mathematical concepts. Beyond traditional conceptions of student open- ended work, commonly in the form of textual short-answer or essay responses, the use of figures, tables, number lines, graphs, and pictographs are other examples of open-ended work common in mathematics. While recent developments in areas of natural language processing and machine learning have led to automated methods to score student open-ended work, these methods have largely been limited to textual an- swers. Several computer-based learning systems allow stu- dents to take pictures of hand-written work and include such images within their answers to open-ended questions. With that, however, there are few-to-no existing solutions that support the auto-scoring of student hand-written or drawn answers to questions. In this work, we build upon an ex- isting method for auto-scoring textual student answers and explore the use of OpenAI/CLIP, a deep learning embedding method designed to represent both images and text, as well as Optical Character Recognition (OCR) to improve model performance. We evaluate the performance of our method on a dataset of student open-responses that contains both text- and image-based responses, and find a reduction of model error in the presence of images when controlling for other answer-level features. 

Feedback is a crucial factor in mathematics learning and instruction. Whether expressed as indicators of correctness or textual comments, feedback can help guide students’ understanding of content. Beyond this, however, teacher-written messages and comments can provide motivational and affective benefits for students. The question emerges as to what constitutes effective feedback to promote not only student learning but also motivation and engagement. Teachers may have different perceptions of what constitutes effective feedback utilizing different tones in their writing to communicate their sentiment while assessing student work. This study aims to investigate trends in teacher sentiment and tone when providing feedback to students in a middle school mathematics class context. Toward this, we examine the applicability of state-of-the-art sentiment analysis methods in a mathematics context and explore the use of punctuation marks in teacher feedback messages as a measure of tone. 

Solving mathematical problems is cognitively complex, involving strategy formulation, solution development, and the application of learned concepts. However, gaps in students’ knowledge or weakly grasped concepts can lead to errors. Teachers play a crucial role in predicting and addressing these difficulties, which directly influence learning outcomes. However, preemptively identifying misconcep- tions leading to errors can be challenging. This study leverages historical data to assist teachers in recognizing common errors and addressing gaps in knowledge through feedback. We present a longitudinal analysis of incorrect answers from the 2015-2020 aca- demic years on two curricula, Illustrative Math and EngageNY, for grades 6, 7, and 8. We find consistent errors across 5 years despite varying student and teacher populations. Based on these Common Wrong Answers (CWAs), we designed a crowdsourcing platform for teachers to provide Common Wrong Answer Feedback (CWAF). This paper reports on an in vivo randomized study testing the ef- fectiveness of CWAFs in two scenarios: next-problem-correctness within-skill and next-problem-correctness within-assignment, re- gardless of the skill. We find that receiving CWAF leads to a signifi- cant increase in correctness for consecutive problems within-skill. However, the effect was not significant for all consecutive problems within-assignment, irrespective of the associated skill. This paper investigates the potential of scalable approaches in identifying Com- mon Wrong Answers (CWAs) and how the use of crowdsourced CWAFs can enhance student learning through remediation. 

Solving mathematical problems is cognitively complex, involving strategy formulation, solution development, and the application of learned concepts. However, gaps in students' knowledge or weakly grasped concepts can lead to errors. Teachers play a crucial role in predicting and addressing these difficulties, which directly influence learning outcomes. However, preemptively identifying misconceptions leading to errors can be challenging. This study leverages historical data to assist teachers in recognizing common errors and addressing gaps in knowledge through feedback. We present a longitudinal analysis of incorrect answers from the 2015-2020 academic years on two curricula, Illustrative Math and EngageNY, for grades 6, 7, and 8. We find consistent errors across 5 years despite varying student and teacher populations. Based on these Common Wrong Answers (CWAs), we designed a crowdsourcing platform for teachers to provide Common Wrong Answer Feedback (CWAF). This paper reports on an in vivo randomized study testing the effectiveness of CWAFs in two scenarios: next-problem-correctness within-skill and next-problem-correctness within-assignment, regardless of the skill. We find that receiving CWAF leads to a significant increase in correctness for consecutive problems within-skill. However, the effect was not significant for all consecutive problems within-assignment, irrespective of the associated skill. This paper investigates the potential of scalable approaches in identifying Common Wrong Answers (CWAs) and how the use of crowdsourced CWAFs can enhance student learning through remediation. 

Background: Teachers often rely on the use of open‐ended questions to assess students' conceptual understanding of assigned content. Particularly in the context of mathematics; teachers use these types of questions to gain insight into the processes and strategies adopted by students in solving mathematical problems beyond what is possible through more close‐ended problem types. While these types of problems are valuable to teachers, the variation in student responses to these questions makes it difficult, and time‐consuming, to evaluate and provide directed feedback. It is a well‐studied concept that feedback, both in terms of a numeric score but more importantly in the form of teacher‐authored comments, can help guide students as to how to improve, leading to increased learning. It is for this reason that teachers need better support not only for assessing students' work but also in providing meaningful and directed feedback to students. Objectives: In this paper, we seek to develop, evaluate, and examine machine learning models that support automated open response assessment and feedback. Methods: We build upon the prior research in the automatic assessment of student responses to open‐ended problems and introduce a novel approach that leverages student log data combined with machine learning and natural language processing methods. Utilizing sentence‐level semantic representations of student responses to open‐ended questions, we propose a collaborative filtering‐based approach to both predict student scores as well as recommend appropriate feedback messages for teachers to send to their students. Results and Conclusion: We find that our method outperforms previously published benchmarks across three different metrics for the task of predicting student performance. Through an error analysis, we identify several areas where future works maybe able to improve upon our approach. 

Prior work analyzing tutoring sessions provided evidence that highly effective tutors, through their interaction with students and their experience, can perceptively recognize incorrect processes or “bugs” when students incorrectly answer problems. Researchers have studied these tutoring interactions examining instructional approaches to address incorrect processes and observed that the format of the feedback can influence learning outcomes. In this work, we recognize the incorrect answers caused by these buggy processes as Common Wrong Answers (CWAs). We examine the ability of teachers and instructional designers to identify CWAs proactively. As teachers and instructional designers deeply understand the common approaches and mistakes students make when solving mathematical problems, we examine the feasibility of proactively identifying CWAs and generating Common Wrong Answer Feedback (CWAFs) as a formative feedback intervention for addressing student learning needs. As such, we analyze CWAFs in three sets of analyses. We first report on the accuracy of the CWAs predicted by the teachers and instructional designers on the problems across two activities.We then measure the effectiveness of the CWAFs using an intent-to-treat analysis. Finally, we explore the existence of personalization effects of the CWAFs for the students working on the two mathematics activities. 

Prior work analyzing tutoring sessions provided evidence that highly effective tutors, through their interaction with students and their experience, can perceptively recognize incorrect processes or “bugs” when students incorrectly answer problems. Researchers have studied these tutoring interactions examining instructional approaches to address incorrect processes and observed that the format of the feedback can influence learning outcomes. In this work, we recognize the incorrect answers caused by these buggy processes as Common Wrong Answers (CWAs). We examine the ability of teachers and instructional designers to identify CWAs proactively. As teachers and instructional designers deeply understand the common approaches and mistakes students make when solving mathematical problems, we examine the feasibility of proactively identifying CWAs and generating Common Wrong Answer Feedback (CWAFs) as a formative feedback intervention for addressing student learning needs. As such, we analyze CWAFs in three sets of analyses. We first report on the accuracy of the CWAs predicted by the teachers and instructional designers on the problems across two activities. We then measure the effectiveness of the CWAFs using an intent-to-treat analysis. Finally, we explore the existence of personalization effects of the CWAFs for the students working on the two mathematics activities. 

Advancements in online learning platforms have revolutionized education in multiple different ways, transforming the learning experiences and instructional practices. The development of natural language processing and machine learning methods have helped understand and process student languages, comprehend their learning state, and build automated supports for teachers. With this, there has been a growing body of research in developing automated methods to assess students’ work both in mathematical and nonmathematical domains. These automated methods address questions of two categories; closed-ended (with limited correct answers) and open-ended (are often subjective and have multiple correct answers), where open-ended questions are mostly used by teachers to learn about their student’s understanding of a particular concept. Manually assessing and providing feedback to these open-ended questions is often arduous and time-consuming for teachers. For this reason, there have been several works to understand student responses to these open-ended questions to automate the assessment and provide constructive feedback to students. In this research, we seek to improve such a prior method for assessment and feedback suggestions for student open-ended works in mathematics. For this, we present an error analysis of the prior method ”SBERT-Canberra” for auto-scoring, explore various factors that contribute to the error of the method, and propose solutions to improve upon the method by addressing these error factors. We further intend to expand this approach by improving feedback suggestions for teachers to give to their students’ open-ended work.