Complementary strengths? Evaluation of a hybrid human-machine scoring approach for a test of oral academic English

IF 2.7 3区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice Pub Date : 2021-07-04 DOI:10.1080/0969594X.2021.1979466

Larry Davis, S. Papageorgiou

{"title":"Complementary strengths? Evaluation of a hybrid human-machine scoring approach for a test of oral academic English","authors":"Larry Davis, S. Papageorgiou","doi":"10.1080/0969594X.2021.1979466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Human raters and machine scoring systems potentially have complementary strengths in evaluating language ability; specifically, it has been suggested that automated systems might be used to make consistent measurements of specific linguistic phenomena, whilst humans evaluate more global aspects of performance. We report on an empirical study that explored the possibility of combining human and machine scores using responses from the speaking section of the TOEFL iBT® test. Human raters awarded scores for three sub-constructs: delivery, language use and topic development. The SpeechRaterSM automated scoring system produced scores for delivery and language use. Composite scores computed from three different combinations of human and automated analytic scores were equally or more reliable than human holistic scores, probably due to the inclusion of multiple observations in composite scores. However, composite scores calculated solely from human analytic scores showed the highest reliability and reliability steadily decreased as more machine scores replaced human scores.","PeriodicalId":51515,"journal":{"name":"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice","volume":"36 1","pages":"437 - 455"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1979466","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

Abstract

ABSTRACT Human raters and machine scoring systems potentially have complementary strengths in evaluating language ability; specifically, it has been suggested that automated systems might be used to make consistent measurements of specific linguistic phenomena, whilst humans evaluate more global aspects of performance. We report on an empirical study that explored the possibility of combining human and machine scores using responses from the speaking section of the TOEFL iBT® test. Human raters awarded scores for three sub-constructs: delivery, language use and topic development. The SpeechRaterSM automated scoring system produced scores for delivery and language use. Composite scores computed from three different combinations of human and automated analytic scores were equally or more reliable than human holistic scores, probably due to the inclusion of multiple observations in composite scores. However, composite scores calculated solely from human analytic scores showed the highest reliability and reliability steadily decreased as more machine scores replaced human scores.

查看原文本刊更多论文

互补优势?学术英语口语测试中人机混合评分方法的评价

人类评分员和机器评分系统在评估语言能力方面具有潜在的互补优势;具体来说，有人建议自动化系统可以用来对特定的语言现象进行一致的测量，而人类则评估更全面的表现。我们报告了一项实证研究，该研究利用托福网考口语部分的回答，探索了将人类和机器分数结合起来的可能性。人类评分者为三个子结构打分:表达、语言使用和主题发展。SpeechRaterSM自动评分系统为演讲和语言使用打分。从人类和自动分析得分的三种不同组合计算的综合得分与人类整体得分相同或更可靠，可能是由于在综合得分中包含了多个观察结果。然而，仅从人类分析得分计算的综合得分显示出最高的可靠性，随着更多的机器得分取代人类得分，可靠性稳步下降。

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

Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-

CiteScore

5.70

自引率

3.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Recent decades have witnessed significant developments in the field of educational assessment. New approaches to the assessment of student achievement have been complemented by the increasing prominence of educational assessment as a policy issue. In particular, there has been a growth of interest in modes of assessment that promote, as well as measure, standards and quality. These have profound implications for individual learners, institutions and the educational system itself. Assessment in Education provides a focus for scholarly output in the field of assessment. The journal is explicitly international in focus and encourages contributions from a wide range of assessment systems and cultures. The journal''s intention is to explore both commonalities and differences in policy and practice.