skip to main content
10.1145/2910896.2910900acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesjcdlConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Evaluating the Quality of Educational Answers in Community Question-Answering

Published:19 June 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Community Question-Answering (CQA), where questions and answers are generated by peers, has become a popular method of information seeking in online environments. While the content repositories created through CQA sites have been used widely to support general purpose tasks, using them as online digital libraries that support educational needs is an emerging practice. Horizontal CQA services, such as Yahoo! Answers, and vertical CQA services, such as Brainly, are aiming to help students improve their learning process by answering their educational questions. In these services, receiving high quality answer(s) to a question is a critical factor not only for user satisfaction, but also for supporting learning. However, the questions are not necessarily answered by experts, and the askers may not have enough knowledge and skill to evaluate the quality of the answers they receive. This could be problematic when students build their own knowledge base by applying inaccurate information or knowledge acquired from online sources. Using moderators could alleviate this problem. However, a moderator's evaluation of answer quality may be inconsistent because it is based on their subjective assessments. Employing human assessors may also be insufficient due to the large amount of content available on a CQA site. To address these issues, we propose a framework for automatically assessing the quality of answers. This is achieved by integrating different groups of features - personal, community-based, textual, and contextual - to build a classification model and determine what constitutes answer quality. To test this evaluation framework, we collected more than 10 million educational answers posted by more than 3 million users on Brainly's United States and Poland sites. The experiments conducted on these datasets show that the model using Random Forest (RF) achieves more than 83% accuracy in identifying high quality of answers. In addition, the findings indicate that personal and community-based features have more prediction power in assessing answer quality. Our approach also achieves high values on other key metrics such as F1-score and Area under ROC curve. The work reported here can be useful in many other contexts where providing automatic quality assessment in a digital repository of textual information is paramount.

References

  1. L. A. Adamic, J. Zhang, E. Bakshy, and M. S. Ackerman. Knowledge sharing and yahoo answers: Everyone knows something. In WWW, pages 665--674, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. C. Aritajati and N. H. Narayanan. Facilitating students' collaboration and learning in a question and answer system. In CSCW Companion, pages 101--106, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. M. Berlingerio, D. Koutra, T. Eliassi-Rad, and C. Faloutsos. Network similarity via multiple social theories. In ASONAM, pages 1439--1440, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. C. M. Bishop. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (Information Science and Statistics). Springer, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. L. Breiman. Random forests. Mach. Learn., 45(1):5--32, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. E. Choi, M. Borkowski, J. Zakoian, K. Sagan, K. Scholla, C. Ponti, M. Labedz, and M. Bielski. Utilizing content moderators to investigate critical factors for assessing the quality of answers on brainly, social learning Q&A platform for students: a pilot study. In ASIST, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. E. Choi, V. Kitzie, and C. Shah. Developing a typology of online Q&A models and recommending the right model for each question type. In ASIST, pages 1--4, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. E. Choi and C. Shah. User motivation for asking a question in online Q&A services. JASIST, In press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. R. A. Cole. Issues in Web-based pedagogy: A critical primer. Greenwood Press, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. D. H. Dalip, H. Lima, M. A. Gonçalves, M. Cristo, and P. Calado. Quality assessment of collaborative content with minimal information. In JCDL, pages 201--210, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. G. Dror, Y. Maarek, and I. Szpektor. Will my question be answered? predicting "question answerability" in community question-answering sites. In ECML/PKDD, volume 8190, pages 499--514, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. R. Gazan. Social Q&A. JASIST, 63:2301--2312, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. D. Gollapalli, P. Mitra, and C. L. Giles. Ranking experts using author-document-topic graphs. In JCDL, pages 87--96, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer Series in Statistics, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. J. P. Kincaid, R. P. Fishburne, R. L. Rogers, and B. S. Chissom. Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel. Technical report, Naval Air Station Memphis, 1975.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. L. T. Le, T. Eliassi-Rad, and H. Tong. MET: A fast algorithm for minimizing propagation in large graphs with small eigen-gaps. In SDM, pages 694--702, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. L. T. Le and C. Shah. Retrieving rising stars in focused community question-answering. In ACIIDS, pages 25--36, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. A. Y. Levy, A. Rajaraman, and J. J. Ordille. Querying heterogeneous information sources using source descriptions. In VLDB, pages 251--262, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Y. Liu, J. Bian, and E. Agichtein. Predicting information seeker satisfaction in community question answering. In SIGIR, pages 483--490, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. E. Momeni, K. Tao, B. Haslhofer, and G.-J. Houben. Identification of useful user comments in social media: A case study on flickr commons. In JCDL, pages 1--10, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. Noer. One Man, One Computer, 10 Million Students: How Khan Academy Is Reinventing Education. Forbes, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. J. Preece, B. Nonnecke, and D. Andrews. The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2):201 -- 223, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. C. Ross, K. Nilsen, and P. Dewdney. Conducting the reference interview: A how-to-do-it manual for librarians. New York: NealSchuman, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. C. Shah and V. Kitzie. Social q&a and virtual reference - comparing apples and oranges with the help of experts and users. JASIST, 63:2020--2036, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. C. Shah, S. Oh, and J. S. Oh. Research agenda for social Q&A. Library & Information Science Research, 31(4):205--209, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. C. Shah and J. Pomerantz. Evaluating and predicting answer quality in community qa. In SIGIR, pages 411--418, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. C. Shah, M. Radford, L. Connaway, E. Choi, and V. Kitzie. How much change do you get from 40? analyzing and addressing failed questions on social Q&A. In ASIST, pages 1--10, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. I. Srba and M. Bielikova. Askalot: Community question answering as a means for knowledge sharing in an educational organization. In CSCW Companion, pages 179--182, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. M. Surdeanu, M. Ciaramita, and H. Zaragoza. Learning to rank answers on large online qa collections. In ACL, pages 719--727, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. J. Surowiecki. The Wisdom of Crowds. Anchor, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. M. A. Suryanto, E. P. Lim, A. Sun, and R. H. L. Chiang. Quality-aware collaborative question answering: Methods and evaluation. In WSDM, pages 142--151, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. P. A. Tess. The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual) - a literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29:A60--A68, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. G. Wang, K. Gill, M. Mohanlal, H. Zheng, and B. Y. Zhao. Wisdom in the social crowd: An analysis of quora. In WWW, pages 1341--1352, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. L. Yang, S. Bao, Q. Lin, X. Wu, D. Han, Z. Su, and Y. Yu. Analyzing and predicting not-answered questions in community-based question answering services. In AAAI, pages 1273--1278, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. S. Yang. Information seeking as problem-solving using a qualitative approach to uncover the novice learners' information-seeking process in a perseus hypertext system. Library and Information Science Research, 19(1):71--92, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Y. Yao, H. Tong, F. Xu, and J. Lu. Predicting long-term impact of cqa posts: A comprehensive viewpoint. In SIGKDD, pages 1496--1505, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Evaluating the Quality of Educational Answers in Community Question-Answering

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        JCDL '16: Proceedings of the 16th ACM/IEEE-CS on Joint Conference on Digital Libraries
        June 2016
        316 pages
        ISBN:9781450342292
        DOI:10.1145/2910896

        Copyright © 2016 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 19 June 2016

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        JCDL '16 Paper Acceptance Rate15of52submissions,29%Overall Acceptance Rate415of1,482submissions,28%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader