Advertisement

Automated Essay Evaluation Based on Fusion of Fuzzy Ontology and Latent Semantic Analysis

  • Saad M. DarwishEmail author
  • Sherine Kh. MohamedEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 921)

Abstract

New learning researches proved that creativity is an essential concern in the arena of education. The best means to evaluate learning outcomes and students’ creativity is essay questions. However, to evaluate these questions is a time-consuming task and subjectivity in scoring assessments remains inevitable. Automated essay evaluation systems (AEE) provide a cost-effective and consistent alternative to human marking. Therefore, numerous automatic essay-grading systems have been developed to lessen the demands of manual essay grading. However, these systems concentrate on syntax and vocabulary, and no consideration is paid to the semantic and coherence of the essay. Moreover, few of the existing systems are able to give informative feedback that is based on extensive domain knowledge to students. In this paper, a system is evolved that uses latent semantic analysis (LSA) and fuzzy ontology to evaluate essays, where LSA will be responsible for checking the semantic. Fuzzy ontology is used to check the consistency and coherence of the essay as it is the best way to overcome the vagueness of the language, and the system will also provide a score with feedback to the student. Experimental results were good in evaluating the essay syntactically and semantically.

Keywords

Natural language processing Automated essay evaluation Fuzzy ontology Latent Semantic Analysis Information retrieval 

References

  1. 1.
    Chuang, T., Liu, E., Shiu, W.: Game-based creativity assessment system: the application of fuzzy theory. Multimed. Tools Appl. 74(21), 9141–9155 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wilson, J.: Universal screening with automated essay scoring: evaluating classification accuracy in grades 3 and 4. J. School Psychol. 68(2), 19–37 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zupanc, K., Bosnić, Z.: Automated essay evaluation with semantic analysis. Knowl. Based Syst. 120(9), 118–132 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghosh, S., Fatima, S.: Design of an automated essay grading (AEG) system in Indian context. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 1(11), 1–6 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elsayed, E., Eldahshan, K., Tawfeek, S.: Automatic evaluation technique for certain types of open questions in semantic learning systems. Hum. Centric Comput. Inf. Sci. 3(1), 1–15 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hofmann, T.: Probabilistic latent semantic indexing. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGIR Forum, USA, pp. 211–218. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vrana, S.R., Vrana, D.T., Penner, L.A., Eggly, S., Slatcher, R.B., Hagiwara, N.: Latent Semantic Analysis: a new measure of patient-physician communication. Soc. Sci. Med. 198(3), 22–26 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Devadoss, N., Ramakrishnan, S.: Knowledge representation using fuzzy ontologies–a review. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. 6(5), 4304–4308 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chali, Y., Hasan, S.: On the effectiveness of using syntactic and shallow semantic tree kernels for automatic assessment of essays. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Natural Language Processing, Japan, pp. 767–773. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cutrone, L., Chang, M.: Automarking: automatic assessment of open questions. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Tunisia, pp. 143–147. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McNamara, D., Crossley, S., Roscoe, R., Allen, L., Dai, J.: A hierarchical classification approach to automated essay scoring. Assess. Writ. 23(3), 35–59 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ruseti, S., Dascalu, M., Johnson, A., McNamara, D., Balyan, R., McCarthy, K., Trausan-Matu, S.: Scoring summaries using recurrent neural networks. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Canada, pp. 191–201. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thomas, N., Kumar, A., Bijlani, K.: Automatic answer assessment in LMS using latent semantic analysis. Procedia Comput. Sci. 58(1), 257–264 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, X.: The relationship between lexical diversity and EFL writing proficiency. Univ. Syd. Pap. TESOL 1(1), 1–9 (2014)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bestgen, Y.: Beyond single-word measures: L2 writing assessment, lexical richness and formulaic competence. System 69(6), 65–78 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schuster, S., Manning, Ch.: Enhanced English universal dependencies: an improved representation for natural language understanding tasks. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Slovenia, pp. 23–28. European Language Resources Association (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kusner, M., Sun, Y., Kolkin, N., Weinberger, K.: From word embeddings to document distances. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, France, pp. 957–966 (2015). Journal of Machine LearningGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Han, S., Zhao, C., Meng, W., Li, C.: Cosine similarity based fingerprinting algorithm in WLAN indoor positioning against device diversity. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Communications, UK, pp. 2710–2714. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zupanc, K., Bosnic, Z.: Automated essay evaluation augmented with semantic coherence measures. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Mining, China, pp. 1133–1138. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diniz-Filho, J., Barbosa, A., Collevatti, R., Chaves, L., Terribile, L., Lima-Ribeiro, M., Telles, M.: Spatial autocorrelation analysis and ecological niche modelling allows inference of range dynamics driving the population genetic structure of a Neotropical savanna tree. J. Biogeogr. 43(1), 167–177 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Viney, N., Van Capelleveen, J., Geary, R., Xia, S.: Antisense oligonucleotides targeting apolipoprotein (a) in people with raised lipoprotein (a): two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trials. Lancet 388(10057), 2239–2253 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Amiri, S., Lutz, R., Socías, E., McDonell, M., Roll, J., Amram, O.: Increased distance was associated with lower daily attendance to an opioid treatment program in Spokane County Washington. J. Subst. Abuse Treatm. 93(3), 26–30 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Phandi, P., Chai, K., Ng, H.: Flexible domain adaptation for automated essay scoring using correlated linear regression. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Portugal, pp. 431–439. Association for Computational Linguistics (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Technology, Institute of Graduate Studies and ResearchUniversity of AlexandriaAlexandriaEgypt

Personalised recommendations