Showing 1 - 4 of 4 Research Library Publications
Posted: | Victoria Yaneva (editor), Matthias von Davier (editor)

Advancing Natural Language Processing in Educational Assessment

 

This book examines the use of natural language technology in educational testing, measurement, and assessment. Recent developments in natural language processing (NLP) have enabled large-scale educational applications, though scholars and professionals may lack a shared understanding of the strengths and limitations of NLP in assessment as well as the challenges that testing organizations face in implementation. This first-of-its-kind book provides evidence-based practices for the use of NLP-based approaches to automated text and speech scoring, language proficiency assessment, technology-assisted item generation, gamification, learner feedback, and beyond.

Posted: | Martin G. Tolsgaard, Christy K. Boscardin, Yoon Soo Park, Monica M. Cuddy, Stefanie S. Sebok-Syer

Advances in Health Sciences Education: Volume 25, p 1057–1086 (2020)

 

This critical review explores: (1) published applications of data science and ML in HPE literature and (2) the potential role of data science and ML in shifting theoretical and epistemological perspectives in HPE research and practice.

Posted: | P. Harik, R.A. Feinberg RA, B.E. Clauser

Integrating Timing Considerations to Improve Testing Practices

 

This chapter addresses a different aspect of the use of timing data: it provides a framework for understanding how an examinee's use of time interfaces with time limits to impact both test performance and the validity of inferences made based on test scores. It focuses primarily on examinations that are administered as part of the physician licensure process.

Posted: | M.R. Raymond, C. Stevens, S.D. Bucak

Adv in Health Sci Educ 24, 141–150 (2019)

 

Research suggests that the three-option format is optimal for multiple choice questions (MCQs). This conclusion is supported by numerous studies showing that most distractors (i.e., incorrect answers) are selected by so few examinees that they are essentially nonfunctional. However, nearly all studies have defined a distractor as nonfunctional if it is selected by fewer than 5% of examinees.