Measuring Semantic Textual Similarity and Automatic Answer Assessment in Dialogue Based Tutoring Systems

This dissertation presents methods and resources proposed to improve onmeasuring semantic textual similarity and their applications in student responseunderstanding in dialogue based Intelligent Tutoring Systems. In order to predict the extent of similarity between given pair of sentences,we have proposed machine learning models using dozens of features, such as thescores calculated using optimal multi-level alignment, vector based compositionalsemantics, and machine translation evaluation methods. Furthermore, we haveproposed models towards adding an interpretation layer on top of similaritymeasurement systems. Our models on predicting and interpreting the semanticsimilarity have been the top performing systems in SemEval (a premier venue for thesemantic evaluation) for the last three years. The correlations between our models\u27predictions and the human judgments were above 0.80 for several datasets while ourmodels being very robust than many other top performing systems. Moreover, wehave proposed Bayesian. We have also proposed a novel Neural Network based word representationmapping approach which allows us to map the vector based representation of a wordfound in one model to the another model where the word representation is missing,effectively pooling together the vocabularies and corresponding representationsacross models. Our experiments show that the model coverage increased by few toseveral times depending on which model\u27s vocabulary is taken as a reference. Also,the transformed representations were well correlated to the native target modelvectors showing that the mapped representations can be used with condence tosubstitute the missing word representations in the target model. models to adapt similarity models across domains. Furthermore, we have proposed methods to improve open-ended answersassessment in dialogue based tutoring systems which is very challenging because ofthe variations in student answers which often are not self contained and need thecontextual information (e.g., dialogue history) in order to better assess theircorrectness. In that, we have proposed Probabilistic Soft Logic (PSL) modelsaugmenting semantic similarity information with other knowledge. To detect intra- and inter-sentential negation scope and focus in tutorialdialogs, we have developed Conditional Random Fields (CRF) models. The resultsindicate that our approach is very effective in detecting negation scope and focus intutorial dialogue context and can be further developed to augment the naturallanguage understanding systems. Additionally, we created resources (datasets, models, and tools) for fosteringresearch in semantic similarity and student response understanding inconversational tutoring systems

Reasoning-Driven Question-Answering For Natural Language Understanding

Natural language understanding (NLU) of text is a fundamental challenge in AI, and it has received significant attention throughout the history of NLP research. This primary goal has been studied under different tasks, such as Question Answering (QA) and Textual Entailment (TE). In this thesis, we investigate the NLU problem through the QA task and focus on the aspects that make it a challenge for the current state-of-the-art technology. This thesis is organized into three main parts: In the first part, we explore multiple formalisms to improve existing machine comprehension systems. We propose a formulation for abductive reasoning in natural language and show its effectiveness, especially in domains with limited training data. Additionally, to help reasoning systems cope with irrelevant or redundant information, we create a supervised approach to learn and detect the essential terms in questions. In the second part, we propose two new challenge datasets. In particular, we create two datasets of natural language questions where (i) the first one requires reasoning over multiple sentences; (ii) the second one requires temporal common sense reasoning. We hope that the two proposed datasets will motivate the field to address more complex problems. In the final part, we present the first formal framework for multi-step reasoning algorithms, in the presence of a few important properties of language use, such as incompleteness, ambiguity, etc. We apply this framework to prove fundamental limitations for reasoning algorithms. These theoretical results provide extra intuition into the existing empirical evidence in the field

Analyzing short-answer questions and their automatic scoring - studies on semantic relations in reading comprehension and the reduction of human annotation effort

Short-answer questions are a wide-spread exercise type in many educational areas. Answers given by learners to such questions are scored by teachers based on their content alone ignoring their linguistic correctness as far as possible. They typically have a length of up to a few sentences. Manual scoring is a time-consuming task, so that automatic scoring of short-answer questions using natural language processing techniques has become an important task. This thesis focuses on two aspects of short-answer questions and their scoring: First, we concentrate on a reading comprehension scenario for learners of German as a foreign language, where students answer questions about a reading text. Within this scenario, we examine the multiple relations between reading texts, learner answers and teacher-specified target answers. Second, we investigate how to reduce human scoring workload by both fully automatic and computer-assisted scoring. The latter is a scenario where scoring is not done entirely automatically, but where a teacher receives scoring support, for example, by means of clustering similar answers together. Addressing the first aspect, we conduct a series of corpus annotation studies which highlight the relations between pairs of learner answers and target answers, as well as between both types of answers and the reading text they refer to. We annotate sentences from the reading text that were potentially used by learners or teachers for constructing answers and observe that, unsurprisingly, most correct answers can easily be linked to the text; incorrect answers often link to the text as well, but are often backed up by a part of the text not relevant to answer the question. Based on these findings, we create a new baseline scoring model which considers for correctness whether learners looked for an answer in the right place or not. After identifying those links into the text, we label the relation between learner answers and target answers as well as between reading texts and answers by annotating entailment relations. In contrast to the widespread assumption that scoring can be fully mapped to the task of recognizing textual entailment, we find the two tasks to be only closely related and not completely equivalent. Correct answers do often, but not always, entail the target answer, as well as part of the related text, and incorrect answers do most of the time not stand in an entailment relation to the target answer, but often have some overlap with the text. This close relatedness allows us to use gold-standard entailment information to improve the performance of automatic scoring. We also use links between learner answers and both reading texts and target answers in a statistical alignment-based scoring approach using methods from machine translation and reach a performance comparable to an existing knowledge-based alignment approach. Our investigations into how human scoring effort can be reduced when learner answers are manually scored by teachers are based on two methods: active learning and clustering. In the active learning approach, we score particularly informative items first, i.e., items from which a classifier can learn most, identifying them using uncertainty-based sample selection. In this way, we reach a higher performance with a given number of annotation steps compared to randomly selected answers. In the second research strand, we use clustering methods to group similar answers together, such that groups of answers can be scored in one scoring step. In doing so, the number of necessary labeling steps can be substantially reduced. When comparing clustering-based scoring to classical supervised machine learning setups, where the human annotations are used to train a classifier, supervised machine learning is still in the lead in terms of performance, whereas clusters provide the advantage of structured output. However, we are able to close part of the performance gap by means of supervised feature selection and semi-supervised clustering. In an additional study, we investigate the automatic processing of learner language with respect to the performance of part-of-speech (POS) tagging tools. We manually annotate a German reading comprehension corpus both with spelling normalization and POS information and find that the performance of automatic POS tagging can be improved by spell-checking the data using the reading text as additional evidence for lexical material intended in a learner answer.Short-Answer-Fragen sind ein weit verbreiteter Aufgabentyp in vielen Bildungsbereichen. Die Antworten, die Lerner zu solchen Aufgaben geben, werden von Lehrenden allein auf Grundlage ihres Inhalts bewertet; linguistische Korrektheit wird soweit möglich ignoriert. Diese Doktorarbeit legt ihren Schwerpunkt auf zwei Aspekte im Zusammenhang mit Short- Answer-Fragen und ihrer Bewertung: Zum einen betrachten wir ein Leseverständnisszenario, bei dem Studenten Fragen zu Lesetexten beantworten. Dabei untersuchen wir insbesondere die verschiedenen Beziehungen, die es zwischen Lesetexten, Lernerantworten und vom Lehrer erstellten Musterantworten gibt. Zum anderen untersuchen wir, wie der menschliche Bewertungsaufwand durch voll-automatisches und computergestütztes Bewerten reduziert werden kann. Bei letzterem handelt es sich um ein Szenario, in dem Lehrer bei der Bewertung unterstützt werden, z.B. indem ähnliche Antworten automatisch gruppiert werden. Zur Untersuchung des ersten Aspekts unternehmen wir eine Reihe von Korpusannotationsstudien, die sowohl die Beziehungen zwischen Lerner- und Musterantworten beleuchten, als auch die Beziehung zwischen diesen Antworten und dem Lesetext, auf den sie sich beziehen. Wir annotieren Sätze aus dem Lesetext, die vermutlich bei der Formulierung einer Antwort benutzt wurden und machen die zu erwartende Beobachtung, dass die meisten korrekten Antworten problemlos mit bestimmten Textpassagen in Verbindung gebracht werden können. Inkorrekte Antworten haben ebenfalls oft eine Verbindung zu bestimmten Textpassagen, die aber oft für die jeweilige Frage nicht relevant sind. Auf Grundlage dieser Erkenntnisse entwerfen wir ein neues Baseline-Bewertungsmodell, das für die Korrektheit einer Antwort nur in Betracht zieht, ob der Lerner die Antwort an der richtigen Stelle im Lesetext gesucht hat oder nicht. Nachdem wir diese Verbindungen in den Text identifiziert haben, annotieren wir die Relation zwischen Lerner- und Musterantworten und zwischen Texten und Antworten mit Entailment- Relationen. Im Gegensatz zur der weitverbreiteten Annahme, dass das Bewerten von Short- Answer-Fragen und das Erkennen von Textual-Entailment-Relationen zwischen Lerner und Musterantworten sich direkt entsprechen, finden wir heraus, dass die beiden Aufgaben nur nahe verwandt aber nicht vollständig äquivalent sind. Korrekte Antworten entailen meistens, aber nicht immer, die Musterantwort und auch den entsprechenden Satz im Lesetext. Inkorrekte Antworten stehen meist in keiner Entailmentrelation mit der Musterantwort, haben aber oft zumindest teilweisen Overlap mit dem Text. Diese nahe Verwandtschaft erlaubt es uns, Goldstandard-Entailmentinformation zu benutzen, um die Performanz beim automatischen Bewerten zu verbessern. Wir benutzen die annotierten Verbindungen zwischen Lesetexten und Antworten auch in einem Scoringansatz, der auf statistischem Alignment basiert und Methoden aus dem Bereich der maschinellen Übersetzung nutzt. Dabei erreichen wir eine Scoringgenauigkeit, die mit Ansätzen, die ein existierendes wissensbasiertes Alignment nutzen, vergleichbar ist. Unsere Untersuchungen, wie der Bewertungsaufwand beim Menschen verringert werden kann, wenn Antworten vom Lehrer manuell bewertet werden, basieren auf zwei Methoden: Active Learning und Clustering. Beim Active-Learning-Ansatz werden besonders informative Antworten vorrangig zur Bewertung ausgewählt, d.h. solche Antworten, von denen ein Klassifikator besonders viel lernen kann. Wir identifizieren solche Antworten durch Uncertainty-Sampling- Methoden und erreichen dadurch mit einer gegebenen Anzahl von Annotationsschritten eine höhere Klassifikationsgenauigkeit als mit zufällig ausgewählten Antworten. In unserem zweiten Forschungszweig nutzen wir Clusteringmethoden um ähnliche Antworten zu gruppieren, so dass Gruppen von Antworten in einem Annotationsschritt bewertet werden können. Dadurch kann die Anzahl der insgesamt nötigen Bewertungsschritte drastisch reduziert werden. Beim Vergleich zwischen clusteringbasierten Bewertungsverfahren und klassischem überwachten maschinellen Lernen, bei dem menschliche Annotationen dazu genutzt werden, einen Klassifikator zu trainieren, erbringen überwachte maschinelle Lernverfahren immer noch eine höhere Bewertungsgenauigkeit. Demgegenüber bringen Cluster den Vorteil eines strukturierten Outputs mit sich. Wir sind jedoch in der Lage, einen Teil diese Genauigkeitslücke zu schließen, in dem wir überwachte Featureauswahl und halbüberwachtes Clustering anwenden. In einer zusätzlichen Studie untersuchen wir die automatische Verarbeitung von Lernersprache im Hinblick auf die Performanz vonWerkzeugen für dasWortarten-Tagging. Wir annotieren ein deutsches Leseverstehenskorpus manuell sowohl mit Normalisierungsinformation in Bezug auf Rechtschreibung als auch mit Wortartinformation. Als Ergebnis der Studie finden wir, dass die Performanz bei der automatischen Wortartenzuweisung durch Rechtschreibkorrektur verbessert werden kann, insbesondere wenn wir den Lesetext als zusätzliche Evidenz dafür verwenden, welche Wörter der Leser in einer Antwort vermutlich benutzen wollte

Deeper Understanding of Tutorial Dialogues and Student Assessment

Bloom (1984) reported two standard deviation improvement with human tutoring which inspired many researchers to develop Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs) that are as effective as human tutoring. However, recent studies suggest that the 2-sigma result was misleading and that current ITSs are as good as human tutors. Nevertheless, we can think of 2 standard deviations as the benchmark for tutoring effectiveness of ideal expert tutors. In the case of ITSs, there is still the possibility that ITSs could be better than humans.One way to improve the ITSs would be identifying, understanding, and then successfully implementing effective tutorial strategies that lead to learning gains. Another step towards improving the effectiveness of ITSs is an accurate assessment of student responses. However, evaluating student answers in tutorial dialogues is challenging. The student answers often refer to the entities in the previous dialogue turns and problem description. Therefore, the student answers should be evaluated by taking dialogue context into account. Moreover, the system should explain which parts of the student answer are correct and which are incorrect. Such explanation capability allows the ITSs to provide targeted feedback to help students reflect upon and correct their knowledge deficits. Furthermore, targeted feedback increases learners\u27 engagement, enabling them to persist in solving the instructional task at hand on their own. In this dissertation, we describe our approach to discover and understand effective tutorial strategies employed by effective human tutors while interacting with learners. We also present various approaches to automatically assess students\u27 contributions using general methods that we developed for semantic analysis of short texts. We explain our work using generic semantic similarity approaches to evaluate the semantic similarity between individual learner contributions and ideal answers provided by experts for target instructional tasks. We also describe our method to assess student performance based on tutorial dialogue context, accounting for linguistic phenomena such as ellipsis and pronouns. We then propose an approach to provide an explanatory capability for assessing student responses. Finally, we recommend a novel method based on concept maps for jointly evaluating and interpreting the correctness of student responses

Automatic Short Answer Grading Using Deep Learning

Under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, traditional in-person teaching has undergone significant changes. Online courses become an essential education method. However, online teaching lacks adequate evaluation approaches. That\u27s why exams are still indispensable. However, grading short answer exam questions can be an onerous task. In this work, we propose a novel Automatic Short Answer Grading (ASAG) model based on the Sentence BERT model. On the Short Answer Scoring V2.0 dataset, our proposed model shows improvements on accuracy, Marco F1 score, and Weighted F1 score comparing to the results obtained from the BERT model. In addition, we also compare different task functions and different lengths of answers to further evaluate our model’s performance. A better result is achieved when using the regression task function. At the same time, we find that shorter answers’ result is better than the result obtained from longer answers

DeepEval: An Integrated Framework for the Evaluation of Student Responses in Dialogue Based Intelligent Tutoring Systems

The automatic assessment of student answers is one of the critical components of an Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS) because accurate assessment of student input is needed in order to provide effective feedback that leads to learning. But this is a very challenging task because it requires natural language understanding capabilities. The process requires various components, concepts identification, co-reference resolution, ellipsis handling etc. As part of this thesis, we thoroughly analyzed a set of student responses obtained from an experiment with the intelligent tutoring system DeepTutor in which college students interacted with the tutor to solve conceptual physics problems, designed an automatic answer assessment framework (DeepEval), and evaluated the framework after implementing several important components. To evaluate our system, we annotated 618 responses from 41 students for correctness. Our system performs better as compared to the typical similarity calculation method. We also discuss various issues in automatic answer evaluation