skip to main content
10.1145/3436756.3437036acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicetcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Automated Essay Scoring (AES); A Semantic Analysis Inspired Machine Learning Approach: An automated essay scoring system using semantic analysis and machine learning is presented in this research

Published:06 March 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

With the advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI), ‘Automated Essay Scoring’ (AES) systems have become more and more prevalent in recent years. This research proposes an extension to the Coh-Metrix algorithm AES, with a focus on feature lists. Technical features, such as, referential cohesion, lexical diversity, and syntactic complexity are evaluated. Furthermore, it proposes the use of four novel semantic measures, including estimating the topic overlap between an essay and its brief. A prototype implementation, using neural networks, is used to test the individual and comparative performance of the newly proposed AES system. The results show a considerable improvement on the results obtained in the existing research for the original Coh-Metrix algorithm; from an adjacent accuracy of 91%, to an adjacent accuracy of 97.5% (and a QWK of 0.822). This suggests that the new features and the proposed system have the potential to improve essay grading and would be a good area for further research

References

  1. Chung, G. and O'Neil, G. 1997. Methodological Approaches to Online Scoring of Essays. CSE Technical Report 461 Gregory K. W. K. Chung CRESST / University of California, Los Angeles Harold F. O Neil, Jr. University of Southern California / CRESST December 1997 Center for the Study’, Center for the Study of Evaluation, CRESST, 1522(310).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Coh-Metrix Version 3.0 Indices 2020. Retrieved January 16, 2020 from http://141.225.41.245/cohmetrixhome/documentation_indices.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Jennifer Onod Contreras, Shadi MS Hilles, and Zainab Abu Bakar. 2018. Automated Essay Scoring with Ontology based on Text Mining and NLTK tools. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Smart Computing and Electronic Enterprise (ICSCEE). IEEE, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ICSCEE.2018.8538399.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Arjiit De and Sunil Kumar Kopparapu. 2011. An unsupervised approach to automated selection of good essays. In Proceedings of the IEEE Recent Advances in Intelligent Computational Systems. IEEE, pp. 662–666. doi: 10.1109/RAICS.2011.6069393.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Semir Dikli. 2006. An overview of automated scoring of essays. In the Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(1), pp. 1–35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. David Gefen, James E. Endicott, Jorge E. Fresneda, Jacob Miller, and Kai R. Larsen. 2017. A Guide to Text Analysis with Latent Semantic Analysis in R with Annotated Code Studying Online Reviews and the Stack Exchange Community. In Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 41(1), pp. 450–496. doi: 10.17705/1CAIS.04121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Google Code 2013. Google Code Archive - Long-Term Storage For Google Code Project Hosting. Retrieved February 15, 2020 from https://code.google.com/archive/p/word2vec/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Hussein, M. A., Hassan, H. and Nassef, M. 2019. Automated language essay scoring systems: a literature review. In PeerJ Computer Science, 5, p. e208. doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.208.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Harneet Kaur Janda, Atish Pawar, Shan Du, and Vijay Mago. 2019. Syntactic, Semantic and Sentiment Analysis: The Joint Effect on Automated Essay Evaluation. In IEEE Access. IEEE, 7, pp. 108486–108503. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2933354.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Kaggle.com 2012. The Hewlett Foundation: Automated Essay Scoring | Kaggle. Retrieved November 11, 2019 from https://www.kaggle.com/c/asap-aes/overviewGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Kristopher Kyle, Scott Crossley, and Cynthia Berger. 2018. The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): version 2.0. In Behavior Research Methods. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), pp. 1030–1046. doi: 10.3758/s13428-017-0924-4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Thomas K Landauer, Peter W. Foltz and Darrell Laham. 1998. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. In Discourse Processes, 25(2–3), pp. 259–284. doi: 10.1080/01638539809545028.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Danielle S McNamara, Scott A Crossley, and Rod Roscoe. 2013. Natural language processing in an intelligent writing strategy tutoring system. In Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), pp. 499–515. doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0258-1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Md. Monjurul Islam and A. S. M. Latiful Hoque. 2010. Automated essay scoring using Generalized Latent Semantic Analysis. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT), 358–363. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCITECHN.2010.5723884Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellis B. Page. 1966. The imminence of... grading essays by computer. In the Phi Delta Kappan. Phi Delta Kappa International, 47(5), pp. 238–243.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Diego Palma and John Atkinson. 2018. Coherence-Based Automatic Essay Assessment. In IEEE Intelligent Systems, 33(5), pp. 26–36. doi: 10.1109/MIS.2018.2877278.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Abigail R. Razon, Ma. Lourdes J. Vargas, Rowena Cristina L. Guevara, and Prospero C. Naval. 2010. Automated essay content analysis based on concept indexing with fuzzy C-means clustering. In Proceedings of the IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Circuits and Systems, Proceedings, APCCAS. IEEE, (December), pp. 1167–1170. doi: 10.1109/APCCAS.2010.5775058.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Zining Wang, Jianli Liu, and Ruihai Dong. 2018. Intelligent Auto-grading System. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing and Intelligence Systems (CCIS). IEEE, pp. 430–435. doi: 10.1109/CCIS.2018.8691244.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Xue Mei Yao. 2013. Automated Essay Scoring: A Comparative Study. In Applied Mechanics and Materials, 274, pp. 650–653. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.274.650.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Kaja Zupanc and Zoran Bosnic, Z. 2014. Automated Essay Evaluation Augmented with Semantic Coherence Measures. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining. IEEE, pp. 1133-1138. doi: 10.1109/ICDM.2014.21Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

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 Other conferences
    ICETC '20: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers
    October 2020
    252 pages
    ISBN:9781450388276
    DOI:10.1145/3436756

    Copyright © 2020 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 ACM 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: 6 March 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format