Advertisement

A cognitive-based AES model towards learning written English

  • Li LiEmail author
  • Vijayan Sugumaran
Original Research

Abstract

The task of teaching written English has become increasingly important nowadays with the rapid development of internet techniques. Automated essay scoring (AES) systems are established to relieve the stresses on the teachers. But most of them are weak in individualization and incrementally knowledge base. This paper proposes a cognitive-based AES (CAES) model to deal with these issues. It is composed of three parts: sensory acquisition, score analyzer and background knowledge constructor. Sensory acquisition, similar to the eyes of human, is in charge of acquiring basic contents from essays. Background knowledge constructor is responsible for organizing historical contents of essays. Score analyzer is the central part to coordinate the other two parts and in charge of rating essays and giving individualized feedback to students. Experiments have been conducted to validate the accuracy of the proposed CAES model.

Keywords

Automated essay scoring Cognition Written English Background knowledge 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research work reported in this paper was supported by the Science Foundation of Shanghai under Grant no. 16ZR1435500.

References

  1. Agrawal R, Srikant R (1994) Fast algorithms for mining association rules. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on very large data bases, pp 487–499Google Scholar
  2. Anderson RC, Ortony A (1975) On putting apples into bottles—a problem of polysemy. Cogn Psychol 7(2):167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson JR, Bothell D, Byrne MD, Douglass S, Lebiere C, Qin Y (2004) An integrated theory of the mind. Psychol Rev 111(4):1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson RC, Shiffrin RM (1968) Human memory: a proposed system and its control processes. Psychol Learn Motiv 2:89–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baddeley A (1992) Working memory. Science 255(5044):556–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3:993–1022zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Burstein J (2003) The E-rater® scoring engine: automated essay scoring with natural language processing. In: Shermis MD, Burstein J (eds) Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, pp 113–121Google Scholar
  8. Burstein J, Chodorow M (1999) Automated essay scoring for nonnative English speakers. In: Proceedings of a symposium on computer mediated language assessment and evaluation in natural language processing. association for computational linguistics, pp 68–75Google Scholar
  9. Burstein J, Marcu D, Andreyev S, Chodorow M (2001) Towards automatic classification of discourse elements in essays. In: Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics, association for computational linguistics, pp 98–105Google Scholar
  10. Dumais ST (2004) Latent semantic analysis. Inf Sci Technol 38(1):188–230Google Scholar
  11. Elliot S (2003) IntelliMetric: from here to validity. In: Shermis MD, Burstein J (eds) Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, pp 71–86Google Scholar
  12. Goldman SR, Varma S, Cote N (1996) Extending capacity-constrained construction-integration: toward ‘smarter’ and flexible models of text comprehension. Models Underst Text:73–114Google Scholar
  13. Greene SB, Gerrig RJ, McKoon G, Ratcliff R (1994) Unheralded pronouns and management by common ground. J Mem Lang 33(4):511–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hearst MA (2000) The debate on automated essay grading. IEEE Intell Syst Appl 15(5):22–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Landauer TK (2003) Automated scoring and annotation of essays with the Intelligent Essay Assessor. In: Shermis MD, Burstein J (eds) Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, pp 87–112Google Scholar
  16. Li L (2018) Sentiment-enhanced learning model for online language learning system. Electron Commer Res 18:23–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McKoon G, Ratcliff R (1992) Inference during reading. Psychol Rev 99(3):440–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Page EB (2003) Project essay grade: PEG. In: Shermis MD, Burstein J (eds) Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, pp 43–54Google Scholar
  19. Rosen-Zvi M, Griffiths T, Steyvers M, Smyth P (2004) The author-topic model for authors and documents. In: Proceedings of the 20th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, AUAI Press, pp 487–494Google Scholar
  20. Rudner L, Gagne P (2001) An overview of three approaches to scoring written essays by computer. Pract Assess Res Eval 7(26):1–4Google Scholar
  21. Rudner LM, Liang T (2002) Automated essay scoring using Bayes’ theorem. J Technol Learn Assess 1(2):3–21Google Scholar
  22. Rudner LM, Garcia V, Welch C (2006) An evaluation of IntelliMetric™ essay scoring system. J Technol Learn Assess 4(4)Google Scholar
  23. Salton G, Buckley C (1988) Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. Inf Process Manag 24(5):513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Salton G, Wong A, Yang CS (1975) A vector space model for automatic indexing. Commun ACM 8(11):613–620CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Shermis MD, Burstein J, Higgins D, Zechner K (2010) Automated essay scoring: writing assessment and instruction. Int Encycl Educ 4(1):20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Snaider J, McCall R, Franklin S (2011) The LIDA framework as a general tool for AGI. In: Proceedings of international conference on artificial general intelligence. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 133–142Google Scholar
  27. Sun R (2005) The CLARION cognitive architecture: extending cognitive modeling to social simulation. In: Sun R (ed) Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction: From Cognitive Modeling to Social Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 79–100.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610721.005
  28. Van den Broek P (2010) Using texts in science education: cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science 328(5977):453–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van den Broek P, Rapp DN, Kendeou P (2005) Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Process 39(2–3):299–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Waugh NC, Norman DA (1965) Primary memory. Psychol Rev 72(2):89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wei X, Luo X, Li Q, Zhang J, Xu Z (2015) Online comment-based hotel quality automatic assessment using improved fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and fuzzy cognitive map. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 23(1):72–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wei X, Zhang J, Zeng DD, Li Q (2016) A multi-level text representation model within background knowledge based on human cognitive process for big data analysis. Clust Comput 19(3):1475–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wei X, Zeng DD, Luo X (2018) Concept evolution analysis based on the dissipative structure of concept semantic space. Future Gen Comput Syst 81:384–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shanghai University of Political Science and LawShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Oakland UniversityRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations