使用人工神经网络对 2019 年 TIMSS 中的图形反应进行评分。

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Educational and Psychological Measurement Pub Date : 2023-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-05-23 DOI:10.1177/00131644221098021
Matthias von Davier, Lillian Tyack, Lale Khorramdel
{"title":"使用人工神经网络对 2019 年 TIMSS 中的图形反应进行评分。","authors":"Matthias von Davier, Lillian Tyack, Lale Khorramdel","doi":"10.1177/00131644221098021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Automated scoring of free drawings or images as responses has yet to be used in large-scale assessments of student achievement. In this study, we propose artificial neural networks to classify these types of graphical responses from a TIMSS 2019 item. We are comparing classification accuracy of convolutional and feed-forward approaches. Our results show that convolutional neural networks (CNNs) outperform feed-forward neural networks in both loss and accuracy. The CNN models classified up to 97.53% of the image responses into the appropriate scoring category, which is comparable to, if not more accurate, than typical human raters. These findings were further strengthened by the observation that the most accurate CNN models correctly classified some image responses that had been incorrectly scored by the human raters. As an additional innovation, we outline a method to select human-rated responses for the training sample based on an application of the expected response function derived from item response theory. This paper argues that CNN-based automated scoring of image responses is a highly accurate procedure that could potentially replace the workload and cost of second human raters for international large-scale assessments (ILSAs), while improving the validity and comparability of scoring complex constructed-response items.</p>","PeriodicalId":11502,"journal":{"name":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","volume":"83 3","pages":"556-585"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10177318/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scoring Graphical Responses in TIMSS 2019 Using Artificial Neural Networks.\",\"authors\":\"Matthias von Davier, Lillian Tyack, Lale Khorramdel\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00131644221098021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Automated scoring of free drawings or images as responses has yet to be used in large-scale assessments of student achievement. In this study, we propose artificial neural networks to classify these types of graphical responses from a TIMSS 2019 item. We are comparing classification accuracy of convolutional and feed-forward approaches. Our results show that convolutional neural networks (CNNs) outperform feed-forward neural networks in both loss and accuracy. The CNN models classified up to 97.53% of the image responses into the appropriate scoring category, which is comparable to, if not more accurate, than typical human raters. These findings were further strengthened by the observation that the most accurate CNN models correctly classified some image responses that had been incorrectly scored by the human raters. As an additional innovation, we outline a method to select human-rated responses for the training sample based on an application of the expected response function derived from item response theory. This paper argues that CNN-based automated scoring of image responses is a highly accurate procedure that could potentially replace the workload and cost of second human raters for international large-scale assessments (ILSAs), while improving the validity and comparability of scoring complex constructed-response items.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11502,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational and Psychological Measurement\",\"volume\":\"83 3\",\"pages\":\"556-585\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10177318/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational and Psychological Measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644221098021\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/5/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644221098021","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/5/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在大规模的学生成绩评估中,尚未使用自由绘画或图像作为回答的自动评分。在本研究中,我们建议使用人工神经网络对 TIMSS 2019 项目中的这类图形回答进行分类。我们比较了卷积方法和前馈方法的分类准确性。我们的结果表明,卷积神经网络(CNN)在损失和准确性方面都优于前馈神经网络。卷积神经网络模型可将高达 97.53% 的图像响应分类到相应的评分类别中,其准确性甚至可媲美典型的人类评分员。通过观察发现,最准确的 CNN 模型能够正确地将一些被人类评分员错误评分的图像响应进行分类,从而进一步证实了这些发现。作为一项额外的创新,我们概述了一种方法,该方法基于从项目反应理论中得出的预期反应函数的应用,为训练样本选择人类评分的反应。本文认为,基于 CNN 的图像回答自动评分是一种高度精确的程序,有可能取代国际大规模测评(ILSA)中第二名人工评分员的工作量和成本,同时提高复杂构建回答项目评分的有效性和可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Scoring Graphical Responses in TIMSS 2019 Using Artificial Neural Networks.

Automated scoring of free drawings or images as responses has yet to be used in large-scale assessments of student achievement. In this study, we propose artificial neural networks to classify these types of graphical responses from a TIMSS 2019 item. We are comparing classification accuracy of convolutional and feed-forward approaches. Our results show that convolutional neural networks (CNNs) outperform feed-forward neural networks in both loss and accuracy. The CNN models classified up to 97.53% of the image responses into the appropriate scoring category, which is comparable to, if not more accurate, than typical human raters. These findings were further strengthened by the observation that the most accurate CNN models correctly classified some image responses that had been incorrectly scored by the human raters. As an additional innovation, we outline a method to select human-rated responses for the training sample based on an application of the expected response function derived from item response theory. This paper argues that CNN-based automated scoring of image responses is a highly accurate procedure that could potentially replace the workload and cost of second human raters for international large-scale assessments (ILSAs), while improving the validity and comparability of scoring complex constructed-response items.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Educational and Psychological Measurement 医学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Educational and Psychological Measurement (EPM) publishes referred scholarly work from all academic disciplines interested in the study of measurement theory, problems, and issues. Theoretical articles address new developments and techniques, and applied articles deal with innovation applications.
期刊最新文献
Discriminant Validity of Interval Response Formats: Investigating the Dimensional Structure of Interval Widths. Novick Meets Bayes: Improving the Assessment of Individual Students in Educational Practice and Research by Capitalizing on Assessors' Prior Beliefs. Differential Item Functioning Effect Size Use for Validity Information. Optimal Number of Replications for Obtaining Stable Dynamic Fit Index Cutoffs. Invariance: What Does Measurement Invariance Allow Us to Claim?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1