Difference between revisions of "Other NLP Applications of Algorithms in Education"

From Penn Center for Learning Analytics Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Added Sha et al (2021))
Line 12: Line 12:
* Model trained on urban students (authenticity: 0.62, uptake: 0.60) performed with similar accuracy when tested on non-urban students (authenticity: 0.62, uptake: 0.62)
* Model trained on urban students (authenticity: 0.62, uptake: 0.60) performed with similar accuracy when tested on non-urban students (authenticity: 0.62, uptake: 0.62)
* Model trained on non-urban (authenticity: 0.61, uptake: 0.59) performed with similar accuracy when tested on urban students (authenticity: 0.60, uptake: 0.63)
* Model trained on non-urban (authenticity: 0.61, uptake: 0.59) performed with similar accuracy when tested on urban students (authenticity: 0.60, uptake: 0.63)
Sha et al. (2021) [https://angusglchen.github.io/files/AIED2021_Lele_Assessing.pdf pdf]
* Models predicting a MOOC discussion forum post is content-relevant or content-irrelevant
* MOOCs taught in English
* Some algorithms achieved ABROCA under 0.01 for female students versus male students,
but other algorithms (Naive Bayes) had ABROCA as high as 0.06
* ABROCA varied from 0.03 to 0.08 for non-native speakers of English versus native speakers
* Balancing the size of each group in the training set reduced ABROCA values

Revision as of 12:22, 4 July 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.


Samei et al. (2015) pdf

  • Models predicting classroom discourse properties (e.g. authenticity and uptake)
  • Model trained on urban students (authenticity: 0.62, uptake: 0.60) performed with similar accuracy when tested on non-urban students (authenticity: 0.62, uptake: 0.62)
  • Model trained on non-urban (authenticity: 0.61, uptake: 0.59) performed with similar accuracy when tested on urban students (authenticity: 0.60, uptake: 0.63)


Sha et al. (2021) pdf

  • Models predicting a MOOC discussion forum post is content-relevant or content-irrelevant
  • MOOCs taught in English
  • Some algorithms achieved ABROCA under 0.01 for female students versus male students,

but other algorithms (Naive Bayes) had ABROCA as high as 0.06

  • ABROCA varied from 0.03 to 0.08 for non-native speakers of English versus native speakers
  • Balancing the size of each group in the training set reduced ABROCA values