Automated scoring of an interactive geometry item: A proof-of-concept

Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment

Volumn 8, Issue 7, 2010, Pages

  Masters, Jessica ^a  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956784556     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15402525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Airasian, P.W. (1991). Classroom Assessment. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
2. Attali, Y. & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater V.2. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(3).
3. Bennett, R.E., Morley M., & Quardt, D. (2000a). Graphical modeling: A new response type for measuring the qualitative component of mathematical reasoning. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 303-322.
4. Bennett, R.E., Morley M., & Quardt, D. (2000b). Three response types for broadening the conception of mathematical problem solving in computerized tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(4), 294-309.
5. Bennett, R.E. & Sebrechts, M.M. (1994). The Accuracy of Automatic Qualitative Analyses of Constructed-Response Solutions to Algebra Word Problems (GE Board Professional Report No. 91-03P). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
6. Bennett, R.E., Steffen, M., Singley, M.K., Morley, M., & Jacquemin, D. (1997). Evaluating an automatically scorable, open-ended response type for measuring mathematical reasoning in computer-adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34(2), 162-176.
7. Ben-Simon, A. & Bennett, R.E. (2007). Toward more substantively meaningful automated essay scoring. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6(1).
8. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 7-74.
9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148.
10. Breese, J.S., Heckerman, D., & Kadie, C. (1998). Empirical Analysis of Predictive Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering (Technical Report MSR-TR-98-12). Microsoft Research, Microsoft Corporation.
11. Burstein, J. & Chodorow, M. (1999). Automated essay scoring for nonnative English speakers. In Proceedings of the ACL99 Workshop on Computer-Mediated Language Assessment and Evaluation of Natural Language Processing (pp. 68-75). College Park, MD.
12. Carroll, W.M. (1998). Geometric knowledge of middle school students in a reform-based mathematics curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 98, 188-197.
13. Chan, K. & Yeung, D. (2000a). An efficient syntactic approach to structural analysis of on-line handwritten mathematical expressions. Pattern Recognition, 33, 375-384.
14. Chan, K. & Yeung, D. (2000b). Mathematical expression recognition: A survey. International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition, 3(1), 3-15.
15. Clements, D.H. (2003). Teaching and learning geometry. In J. Kilpatrick, W.G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A Research Companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 151-178). Reston, VA: NCTM.
16. Clements, D.H. & Battista, M.T. (1992). Geometric and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning: A Project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 420-464). New York, NY: Macmillan.
17. Dikli, S. (2006). An overview of automated scoring of essays. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(1).
18. Hershkowitz, R. (1989). Visualization in geometry: two sides of the coin. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11, 61-76.
19. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T.P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65-97). New York, NY: MacMillan.
20. Mestre, J. (1987). Why should mathematics and science teachers be interested in cognitive research findings? Academic Connections (pp. 3-5, 8-11). New York, NY: The College Board.
21. Nichols, P. (2005). Evidence for Interpretation and Use of Scores From an Automated Essay Scorer (PEM Research Report 05-02). Pearson Educational Measurement.
22. Page, E.B. (2003). Project Essay Grade: PEG. In M.D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated Essay Scoring: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective (pp. 43-54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Page, E.B. & Petersen, N.S. (1995). The computer moves into essay grading. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 561-565.
24. Popham, W.J. (1995). Classroom Assessment: What Teachers Need to Know. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Baco.
25. Popham, W.J. (October 2006). Defining and enhancing formative assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Large-Scale Assessment Conference, Council of Chief State School Officers, San Francisco, CA.
26. Popham, W.J. (2008). Transformative Assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
27. Resnick, L. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science, 220, 477-478.
28. Resnick, L., Nesher, P., Leonard, F., Magone, M., Omamson, S., & Peled, I. (1989). Conceptual bases of arithmetic errors: The case of decimal fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 8-27.
29. Rudner, L.M., Garcia, V., & Welch, C. (2006). An Evaluation of the IntelliMetric Essay Scoring System. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(4).
30. Rudner, L.M. & Liang, T. (2002). Automated essay scoring using Bayes' theorem. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1(2).
31. Rudner, L.M., & Gagne, P. (2001). An overview of three approaches to scoring written essays by computer. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(26).
32. Russell, M., O'Dwyer, L.M., & Miranda, H. (2009). Diagnosing students' misconceptions in algebra: Results from an experimental pilot study. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 414-424.
33. Sangwin, C. (2004). Assessing mathematics automatically using computer algebra and the Internet. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 23(1), 1-14.
34. Sebrechts, M.M., Bennett, R.E., & Rock, D.A. (1991). Agreement between expert system and human raters' scores on complex constructedresponse quantitative items. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 856-862.
35. Shermis, M. & Burstein, J. (2003). Automated Essay Scoring: A Cross- Disciplinary Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36. Singley, M.K. & Bennett, R.E. (1998). Validation and Extension of the Mathematical Expression Response Type: Applications of Schema Theory to Automatic Scoring and Item Generation in Mathematics (GRE Board Report No. 93-24P). Educational Testing Services.
37. Smith, J.P., Di Sessa, A.A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115-163.
38. Wang, J. & Brown, M.S. (2007). Automated essay scoring versus human scoring: A comparative study. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6(2).
39. Valenti, S., Neri, F., & Cucchiarelli, A. (2003). An overview of current research on automated essay grading. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2, 319-330.
40. Vinner, S., & Hershkowitz, R. (1980). Concept images and common cognitive paths in the development of some simple geometrical concepts. In R. Karplis (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 177-184), Berkeley, CA: University of California, Lawrence Hall of Science.