RESEARCH LIBRARY

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.

Medical Teacher: Volume 45 - Issue 6, Pages 565-573

This guide aims aim to describe practical considerations involved in reading and conducting studies in medical education using Artificial Intelligence (AI), define basic terminology and identify which medical education problems and data are ideally-suited for using AI.

Journal of Applied Technology: Volume 23 - Special Issue 1 - Pages 30-40

The interpretations of test scores in secure, high-stakes environments are dependent on several assumptions, one of which is that examinee responses to items are independent and no enemy items are included on the same forms. This paper documents the development and implementation of a C#-based application that uses Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) techniques to produce prioritized predictions of item enemy statuses within a large item bank.

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.

Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 2018 45:3, 381-387

This study uses item response data from the November–December 2014 and April 2015 NAVLE administrations (n =5,292), to conduct timing analyses comparing performance across several examinee subgroups. The results provide evidence that conditions were sufficient for most examinees, thereby supporting the current time limits. For the relatively few examinees who may have been impacted, results suggest the cause is not a bias with the test but rather the effect of poor pacing behavior combined with knowledge deficits.