Difference between revisions of "Native Language and Dialect"

From Penn Center for Learning Analytics Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(93)
Line 8: Line 8:




Loukina et al. (2019) [[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/ets2.12170 pdf]]
Loukina et al. (2019) [[https://aclanthology.org/W19-4401.pdf pdf]]
 
* Models providing automated speech scores on English language proficiency assessment
* L1-specific model trained on the speaker’s native language was the least fair, especially for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean speakers, but not for German speakers
* All models (Baseline, Fair feature subset, L1-specific) performed disadvantageously for Japanese speakers

Revision as of 09:38, 17 February 2022

Naismith et al. (2018) [pdf]

  • a model that measures L2 learners’ lexical sophistication with the frequency list based on the native speaker corpora
  • Arabic-speaking learners are rated systematically lower across all levels of English proficiency than speakers of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish.
  • Level 5 Arabic-speaking learners are unfairly evaluated to have similar level of lexical sophistication as Level 4 learners from China, Japan, Korean and Spain .
  • When used on ETS corpus, “high”-labeled essays by Japanese-speaking learners are rated significantly lower in lexical sophistication than Arabic, Japanese, Korean and Spanish peers.


Loukina et al. (2019) [pdf]

  • Models providing automated speech scores on English language proficiency assessment
  • L1-specific model trained on the speaker’s native language was the least fair, especially for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean speakers, but not for German speakers
  • All models (Baseline, Fair feature subset, L1-specific) performed disadvantageously for Japanese speakers