Search for: All records

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. 

Constructed responses can be used to assess the complexity of student thinking and can be evaluated using rubrics. The two most typical rubric types used are holistic and analytic. Holistic rubrics may be difficult to use with expert-level reasoning that has additive or overlapping language. In an attempt to unpack complexity in holistic rubrics at a large scale, we have developed a systematic approach called deconstruction. We define deconstruction as the process of converting a holistic rubric into defining individual conceptual components that can be used for analytic rubric development and application. These individual components can then be recombined into the holistic score which keeps true to the holistic rubric purpose, while maximizing the benefits and minimizing the shortcomings of each rubric type. This paper outlines the deconstruction process and presents a case study that shows defined concept definitions for a hierarchical holistic rubric developed for an undergraduate physiology-content reasoning context. These methods can be used as one way for assessment developers to unpack complex student reasoning, which may ultimately improve reliability and validation of assessments that are targeted at uncovering large-scale complex scientific reasoning. 

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 notyetredefined—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.

 

The core concept of genetic information flow was identified in recent calls to improve undergraduate biology education. Previous work shows that students have difficulty differentiating between the three processes of the Central Dogma (CD; replication, transcription, and translation). We built upon this work by developing and applying an analytic coding rubric to 1050 student written responses to a three‐question item about the CD. Each response was previously coded only for correctness using a holistic rubric. Our rubric captures subtleties of student conceptual understanding of each process that previous work has not yet captured at a large scale. Regardless of holistic correctness scores, student responses included five or six distinct ideas. By analyzing common co‐occurring rubric categories in student responses, we found a common pair representing two normative ideas about the molecules produced by each CD process. By applying analytic coding to student responses preinstruction and postinstruction, we found student thinking about the processes involved was most prone to change. The combined strengths of analytic and holistic rubrics allow us to reveal mixed ideas about the CD processes and provide a detailed picture of which conceptual ideas students draw upon when explaining each CD process.