Grammatical Error Correction for Sentence-level Assessment in Language Learning

Anisia Katinskaia, R. Yangarber
{"title":"Grammatical Error Correction for Sentence-level Assessment in Language Learning","authors":"Anisia Katinskaia, R. Yangarber","doi":"10.18653/v1/2023.bea-1.41","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper presents experiments on using a Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) model to assess the correctness of answers that language learners give to grammar exercises. We explored whether a GEC model can be applied in the language learning context for a language with complex morphology. We empirically check a hypothesis that a GEC model corrects only errors and leaves correct answers unchanged. We perform a test on assessing learner answers in a real but constrained language-learning setup: the learners answer only fill-in-the-blank and multiple-choice exercises. For this purpose, we use ReLCo, a publicly available manually annotated learner dataset in Russian (Katinskaia et al., 2022). In this experiment, we fine-tune a large-scale T5 language model for the GEC task and estimate its performance on the RULEC-GEC dataset (Rozovskaya and Roth, 2019) to compare with top-performing models. We also release an updated version of the RULEC-GEC test set, manually checked by native speakers. Our analysis shows that the GEC model performs reasonably well in detecting erroneous answers to grammar exercises and potentially can be used for best-performing error types in a real learning setup. However, it struggles to assess answers which were tagged by human annotators as alternative-correct using the aforementioned hypothesis. This is in large part due to a still low recall in correcting errors, and the fact that the GEC model may modify even correct words—it may generate plausible alternatives, which are hard to evaluate against the gold-standard reference.","PeriodicalId":363390,"journal":{"name":"Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.bea-1.41","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The paper presents experiments on using a Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) model to assess the correctness of answers that language learners give to grammar exercises. We explored whether a GEC model can be applied in the language learning context for a language with complex morphology. We empirically check a hypothesis that a GEC model corrects only errors and leaves correct answers unchanged. We perform a test on assessing learner answers in a real but constrained language-learning setup: the learners answer only fill-in-the-blank and multiple-choice exercises. For this purpose, we use ReLCo, a publicly available manually annotated learner dataset in Russian (Katinskaia et al., 2022). In this experiment, we fine-tune a large-scale T5 language model for the GEC task and estimate its performance on the RULEC-GEC dataset (Rozovskaya and Roth, 2019) to compare with top-performing models. We also release an updated version of the RULEC-GEC test set, manually checked by native speakers. Our analysis shows that the GEC model performs reasonably well in detecting erroneous answers to grammar exercises and potentially can be used for best-performing error types in a real learning setup. However, it struggles to assess answers which were tagged by human annotators as alternative-correct using the aforementioned hypothesis. This is in large part due to a still low recall in correcting errors, and the fact that the GEC model may modify even correct words—it may generate plausible alternatives, which are hard to evaluate against the gold-standard reference.
语言学习中句子级评价的语法错误纠正
本文介绍了使用语法错误纠正(GEC)模型来评估语言学习者对语法练习的答案正确性的实验。我们探讨了GEC模型是否可以应用于具有复杂形态的语言学习情境。我们通过经验检验了一个假设,即GEC模型只纠正错误,而保留正确答案不变。我们在一个真实但受限的语言学习环境中对学习者的答案进行了评估:学习者只回答填空和多项选择题。为此,我们使用了ReLCo,这是一个公开可用的俄语手动标注学习器数据集(Katinskaia et al., 2022)。在本实验中,我们对GEC任务的大规模T5语言模型进行了微调,并估计了其在RULEC-GEC数据集上的性能(Rozovskaya和Roth, 2019),以与表现最好的模型进行比较。我们还发布了一个更新版本的RULEC-GEC测试集,由母语人士手动检查。我们的分析表明,GEC模型在检测语法练习的错误答案方面表现得相当好,并且有可能在真实的学习设置中用于表现最佳的错误类型。然而,它很难评估那些被人类注释者标记为使用上述假设的替代正确的答案。这在很大程度上是由于纠正错误的召回率仍然很低,而且事实上,GEC模型甚至可能修改正确的单词——它可能产生可信的替代方案,这些替代方案很难与金标准参考进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信