Artificial Unintelligence:

Why and How Automated Essay Scoring Doesn’t Work (most of the time) & the Perils and Promise of

Automated Essay Evaluation

Les PerelmanComparative Media Studies / Writing

MIT

Definition of TermsAutomated Essay Scoring

(AES)

• Computer produces summative assessment for evaluation

Automated Essay Evaluation (AEE)

• Computer produces formative assessment and responses for learning

Overview

1. Brief recounting of mass-market writing assessment in the United States

2. AES: how it works and its major flaws3. The Turing Test: evaluate AES4. AEE: a brief overview5. AEE: evaluating current implementations 6. AEE: what we can reasonably hope to achieve

– Writelab

7. Demonstration: Playing with the BABEL Generator

The First College Board Entrance Examination in English − June 1901

• The two sides of the character of Achilles as shown in The Iliad. Illustrate each and tell whether we find anything like this contrast in the character of Hector.

• At least two pages

• Four hours to write -- two in the morning & two in the afternoon

SAT Essay June 2005

• Think carefully about the issue presented in the following excerpt and the assignment below. – Most of our schools are not facing up to their

responsibilities. We must begin to ask ourselves whether educators should help students address the critical moral choices and social issues of our time. Schools have responsibilities beyond training people for jobs and getting students into college. • Adapted from Svi Shapiro

• Assignment:– Should schools help students understand moral choices

and social issues?

• 25 minutes

The timed impromptu is an unnatural act

• The timed

impromptu does

not occur in the

real world

• No one writes on

demand without

reflecting about

a topic they may

never have

thought about

Why the change?

• Reliability– Godshalk, F. et al.

The Measurement of Writing Ability ETS 1966

– A. Myers et al. (1966) Simplex structure in the grading of essay tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol26(1), 1966, 41-54.

Where the reliability comes from:Correlation between length and score is a negative function of time allotted

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Share

d V

ari

ance b

etw

een #

Word

s &

Score

25 min

1 hr.

72 hrs.

N=247

N =6498 N=2820

N=115

N= 106N=106

N=660 N=1458

N=798

The greater the time; the smaller the correlation

College Board’s ScoreWrite

Colbert Report on SAT Word Length

Graders were trained to read for length and pretentious diction

Ellis B. Page – Project Essay Grade

• Trin -- Intrinsic variable of interest (e.g. word choice, diction; sentence complexity)

• Prox – “some variable which it is hoped will approximate the variable of true interest”

e-Rater construct

Quinlan, T., Higgins, D., & Wolff, S. (2009) Evaluating the Construct-Coverage of the e-rater® Scoring Engine. ETS Research Report 09-01. p. 15

E-rater 2.0 Proxies

• Organization = # of Discourse Elements (i.e. paragraphs)

• Development = Length of Discourse Elements (i.e. # of sentences & # of words in paragraphs)

• Lexical Complexity = average word length + frequency of infrequently used words + absence of frequently repeated words

Machines Consistently Overvalue Essay Length

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1 Argument 2A Argument

Holistic 2B Argument

Grammar 3 Literary

Analysis 4 Literary

Analysis 5 ReadingSummary

6 ReadingSummary

7 NarrativeComposite

8 NarrativeCompositive

Ave

rage

Sh

are

d V

aria

nce

Essay Sets

Hewlett ASAP Study (2012)

Average Shared Variance (r2) between # of Words and Score for AES Machines & Human Readers

(7 of 9 vendors -- 2 vendors would not allow data to be released)

Average Vendors Average Human Readers

AES Machines Maintain Artificial Correlations Through the Steroids of

Word Counting

Percentage for Reader 1

# of words

Other

Percentage for Reader 2

# of words

Percentage AES Machine

Other

# of words

Other

Shared

Variance

# WordsHuman

Machine

But what about voice recognition?

• Relatively very small set + Moore’s Law

What kind of writing AES can’t grade• Long essays

– ETS’s e-rater has a 1,000 word limit

• Broad and open Writing Tasks

– Two AES machines could not approximate scores on the essay portion of the Australian Scholastic Aptitude Test that called for a fixed length (600 word) essay on a fairly open topic McCurry (2010)

The Turing Test: The Imitation Game

CAPTCHA (Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart)

The Reverse Turing Test

Coherent prose

Gibberish

The Basic Automatic BS Essay Language (BABEL) Generator

http://babel-generator.herokuapp.com/

http://babel-generator.herokuapp.com/

What we can conclude

• The software does not do what it tells students and teachers it is doing

• The metrics (proxies) used are irrelevant, at best, and, probably, are largely antithetical to good writing or communication.

• Students can probably be trained to memorize language and strategies to obtain high scores (construct-irrelevant-strategies)

Some Evidence that Students Are Using BABEL to Game AEE Products

4. What is meant by a “good faith” essay?

It is important to note that although PEG software is extremely reliable in terms of producing scores that are comparable to those awarded by human judges, it can be fooled. Computers, like humans, are not perfect.

PEG presumes “good faith” essays authored by “motivated” writers. A “good faith” essay is one that reflects the writer’s best efforts to respond to the assignment and the prompt without trickery or deceit. A “motivated” writer is one who genuinely wants to do well and for whom the assignment has some consequence (a grade, a factor in admissions or hiring, etc.).

Efforts to “spoof” the system by typing in gibberish, repetitive phrases, or off-topic, illogical prose will produce illogical and essentially meaningless results.

Most of the Studies Are Conducted and / or Controlled by the Vendors

Important Unanswered Questions

1. How easy will it be for students to “game” these machines?

2. When essays are read by a human reader and a machine and there is a discrepancy between scores, after the adjudication procedure, what percentage the machine’s scores are omitted or changed compared to the scores of human reader?

3. When gamed essays are read by a reader and a machine, will the human reader’s score always catch the gamed score?

4. Can human readers also be “gamed”?

Negative Consequences

• What is tested is what is taught

• Emphasis on short writing

• Emphasis on impromptu on-demand writing

When can AES be useful?

• Grading short content-based writing

– Already useful applications

• Use in MOOC’s in conjunction with Peer Review Applications such as Calibrated Peer Review

Why are the testing companies so in love with AES?

• ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία

• Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas

• The love of money is the root of all evil• 1st Timothy 6:10

Chase the Moneychangers out of the Temple

Three Proposals

• First, some sort of professional system of disclosure for large sums of money, let’s say more than $10,000, received from outside professional organizations such as the College Board.

– With textbooks, the disclosure is transparent.

Second, Grass roots development of several different Honors English and

Writing curricula• Teach skills students will need in college

• Developed jointly by high school and college teachers

• Developed through organizations such as NCTE, WPA, and NWP & College Admissions

• Accompanied by some sort of certification procedure

• Pacesetter Program as model

Create Tests of Our Own

• Design Criteria:– Valid

– Fair• Coaching has minimal effect

• Does not discriminate against bilingual or bidialectical students

– Feasible• Not College Board’s bad version of reverse engineering

– “The plane doesn’t fly, but we can make money on it”

– Transparent design, development, and administration

Show warts and all

Decentralized Development and GradingOpportunities for Professional Development

Test to the Teaching

• Different tests and testing communities for different approaches

• Technology enabled

• Diverse and linked group of readers

– Opportunity to address problems of low-performing minorities

– Show students that their essay will be read by a diverse group of readers

So let us

• Urge our schools to stop using the SAT, ACT, & even AP

• Begin a conversation with professional organizations to involve– K-12 teachers

– College admission officers

– College teachers

To envision new and different kinds of writing tests

Act

• Act to divert some of the billions spent on testing to improve teaching

• Act to reclaim testing from business and bring it back to education

• Act to make testing a form of learning not only for students but also for us

• And act by doing sound research on writing and testing; because if we don’t do it we are leaving it to people like the gang at Pearson.

Automated Essay Scoring (AES) becomes Automated Essay Evaluation

(AEE)• Teaching writing in the classroom

First-generation retrofitted trait numeric scores

My Access / IntelliMetric

• Holistic Writing Score: 5.3 / 6.0 88%

Some advice makes writing less effective

Grammar Checkers are UnreliableNick Carbone’s Comparison of Grammarly, MS Word,

and WriteCheck

Grammarly MS Word WriteCheck(e-rater)

# Errors Flagged 52 30 23

# misdiagnosed, false positives, or poorly explained

11 8 14

% misdiagnosed, false positives, or poorly explained

21% 27% 61%

http://nccei12carbone.blogspot.com/2012/10/an-experiment-with-grammar-checkers.html

MS Word Grammar & Style Checker is also not infallible

Dean Mark D. Shermis on Microsoft Word and AEE

The feedback provided by the Web-based software is both quantitative and qualitative. That is, in addition to an overall rating, students may receive scores on individual attributes of writing, and the software may summarize or highlight a variety of errors, ranging from simple grammar to style or content. Some of the software packages also provide a discourse analysis of the work

Shermis, M. (May11, 2012). How automated grading can make good writers. Los Angeles Times

Category: Usage

• Missing or Extra Article

– Rather than rely on commercials or expert opinions about a film, individuals often make their viewing choices based on blogs and the1 collected reviews of peers on various sites on the Internet.

• 1 You may need to remove this article.

Category: Usage

• Type: Confused Words

– Because the consumption of entertainment is so ephemeral, one could posit that advertising might affect1 a consumer's decision more than when by buying a durable good, such as a toaster or a blender.

• 1 You have used affect in this sentence. You may need to use effect instead.

Category: Usage

• Type: Preposition Error

– Rather than rely on commercials or expert opinions about1 a film, individuals often make their viewing choices based on blogs and the collected reviews of peers on various sites on the Internet.

• 1 You may be using the wrong preposition.

Category: Organization & Development

• Type: Thesis Statement– The question of how important advertising is to the sale of any product

is an important one. This question is extremely important in the media industries.1 Because the consumption of entertainment is so ephemeral, one could posit that advertising might affect a consumer's decision more than when by buying a durable good, such as a toaster or a blender.2 The advertising department of the Silver Screen Movie Production Company has recommended spending more on advertising and less on movie production. The advertising director's arguments are not only self-serving, but also logically flawed and, at the least, inconclusive, resting on several very dubious assumptions.• 1 Is this part of the essay your thesis? The purpose of a thesis is to organize,

predict, control, and define your essay. Look in the Writer's Handbook for ways to improve your thesis.

• 2 Is this sentence really a part of your thesis? Remember that a thesis controls the whole content of your essay. You need to strengthen this thesis so that you clearly state the main point you will be making. Look in the Writer's Handbook for tips on doing this.

Category: Organization & Development

• Type: Supporting Ideas– First, the motives behind this particular argument

need to be questioned. In essence, the advertising director is arguing that resources should be taken away from producing films and given to his department.1 Although people often make reasonable requests in their own self-interest, that this policy would greatly enhance the director's fiefdom is a consequence that should elicit some skepticism.1

• 1 Criterion has identified only two sentences to support your topic sentence. Try to include one more sentence in this paragraph.

The Missing Piece in Research on Classroom Use

• Controlled experiments to avoid placebo effect

• Comparison with the default writing tool of the 21st century, MS Word.

Both Pearson and Measurement Inc. Concede that Grammar Checkers are Imperfect

http://doe.sd.gov/oats/documents/WToLrnFAQ.pdf

Q: Why does the grammar check not catch all of a student’s errors?A: The technology that supports grammar check features in programs such as Microsoft Word often return false positives. Since WriteToLearn is a educational product, the creators of this program have decided, in an attempt to not provide students with false positives, to err on the side of caution. Consequently, there are times when the grammar check will not catch all of a student’s errors.

Teachers can address these missed grammar errors by using the post‐it note feature within the program to flag additional errors students might have missed.

PEG Writer8. Why does PEG seem to ignore some grammar “trouble spots” identified by Microsoft Word (or other programs)?

PEG’s grammar checker can detect and provide feedback for a wide variety of syntactic, semantic and punctuation errors. These errors include, but are not limited to, run-on sentences, sentence fragments and comma splices; homophone errors and other errors of word choice; and missing or misused commas, apostrophes, quotation marks and end punctuation. In addition, the grammar checker can locate and offer feedback on style choices inappropriate for formal writing.

Unlike commercial grammar checkers, however, PEG only reports those errors for which there is a high degree of confidence that the “error” is indeed an error. Commercial grammar checkers generally implement a lower threshold and as a result, may report more errors. The downside is they also report higher number of “false positives” (errors that aren’t errors). Because PEG factors these error conditions into scoring decisions, we are careful not to let “false positives” prejudice an otherwise well constructed essay.

What kind of AEE can be useful & effective?

Basic design principle

Primum non nocere!

Focus on style

• MS Word is flawed but it may be hard to build something better that won’t confuse students

• What can be emphasized is style:– Clarity

– Cohesion

– Emphasis

– Concision

– Elegance• e. g. Parallel structures

What we need to do to build effective AEE tools

• Start with General Principles

– Then use statistical modeling

– Follow the model of the development of voice recognition apps

• Transparency

• Independent Research

The right way: by asking questions not giving answers

Letting the student own the process

Products should be transparent in displaying their limitations – again,

showing warts and all

The Real Danger of AES and bad AEE: Widening the Educational Divide

• Private well-endowed institutions do not use AES

• Flawed AEE will be used in large classes to “give students more opportunities to write” poorly

• But what flawed AEE teaches not only dumbs down the ability to communicate – it has the potential to almost totally eliminate it

But AEE also provides a real opportunity to provide a cheap accessible tool to teach and improve writing in multiple contexts

• In classrooms

• Writing at home

• In the workplace

Demo of BABEL Generator

• http://babel-generator.herokuapp.com/

• https://www.dxrgroup.com/cgi-bin/scoreitnow/password.pl

Break Up into Six Groups for MyAccess Experiment

• Hypothesis: MyAccess will give high scores to computer-generated gibberish

• Login to MyAccess– http://www.vantagelearning.com/login/myaccess-home-edition/

Username Password

studentone one

studentwo two

studentthree three

studentfour four

studentfive five

studentsix six

• Open new window and open BABEL Generatorhttp://babel-generator.herokuapp.com/

Instructions1. Click ASSIGNMENTS2. Select Ages 15-183. Select one of the following topics (suggested keywords for

BABEL generator are in parentheses) & click START ESSAY or START REVISION

a. Nature v. nurture (nature, nurture)b. A sense of wonder (wonder)c. Invasion of privacy (privacy)d. Rating movies, music, & video games (violence, obscenity,

teenagers)e. What makes a good coach (coach, encouragement)

4. Open another window, open BABEL Generator, generate essay, & then copy and paste it into the MY ACCESS window

5. Click SUBMIT ESSAY

References• Attali, Yigal & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater V.2. Journal of Technology,

Learning, and Assessment. 4:3. pp. 1-29.

• Bejar, I. I., Flor, M., Futagi, Y., Ramineni, C. (2014). On the vulnerability of automated scoring to construct-irrelevant response strategies (CIRS): An illustration. Assessing Writing 22 pp. 43-59.

• Condon, W. (2013). Large-scale assessment, locally-developed measures, and automated scoring of essays: Fishing for red herrings? Assessing Writing 18, pp. 100-108.

• Dikli, S. & Bleyle, S. (October 2014). Automated Essay Scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback?, Assessing Writing, 22, pp. 1-17. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293514000221.

• Elliot, N. & Klobucar, A. “Automated Essay Evaluation and the teaching of writing.” Handbook of Automated Essay Evaluation: Current Applications and New Directions. Ed. Mark D. Shermis, Jill Burstein, and Sharon Apel. London: Routledge. June 2013.

• Freitag Ericsson, P. & Haswell, R. Ed. (2006) Machine Scoring of Student Essays: Truth or Consequences. Logan, UT: Utah State UP

• Godshalk, F. I, Swineford, F., Coffman, W. E. (1966). The Measurement of Writing Ability. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.

• Haudek, K. C. et al. (2012). What are they thinking? Automated analysis of student writing about acid-based chemistry in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education 11, pp. 149-155.

• Haudek, K. C. et al. (2011). Harnessing technology to improve formative assessment of student conceptions in STEM: Forging a national network. CBE—Life Sciences Education 10, pp. 283-293.

• Herrington, A. & Moran, C. (2012). When writing to a machine in not writing at all. Writing Assessment in the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of Edward M. White. Ed. Norbert Elliot and Les Perelman. New York, NY: Hampton Press, pp.219-232

c• Higgins, D. & Heilman, M. Managing what we can measure: Quantifying the susceptibility of

Automated Scoring Systems to gaming behavior. Educational Measurement 33:3. pp. 36-46.• Klobucar, Andrew, Paul Deane, Norbert Elliot, Chaitanya Ramineni, Perry Deess, & Alex

Rudniy. (2012).“Automated Essay Scoring and the Search for Valid Writing Assessment.” International Advances in Writing Research: Cultures, Places, Measures. Ed. Charles. Bazerman, Chris Dean, Jessica Early, Karen Lunsford, Suzie Null, Paul Rogers, and Amanda Stansell. Fort Collins, Colorado: WAC . pp. 103-119 http://wac.colostate.edu/books/wrab2011/chapter6.pdf

• McCurry, D. (2010). Can machine scoring deal with broad and open writing tests as well as human readers? Assessing Writing. Vol. 15 pp. 118–129

• Morgan, J., Shermis, M. D., Van Deventer, L., & Vander Ark, T. (2013). Automated Student Assessment Prize: Phase 1 & Phase 2: A case study to promote focused innovation in student writing assessment. Seattle, WA: Getting Smarthttp://gettingsmart.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ASAP-Case-Study-FINAL.pdf

• Nehm, R. H., Ha, M., Mayfield, E. (2011). Transforming biology with machine learning: automated scoring of written evolutionary explanations. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 21:1, pp. 183-196

• Page, E. B.(1966). The imminence of grading essays by computer. Phi Delta Kappan 76:7 pp. 561-565

• Perelman, L. (July, 2014). When ‘the state of the art’ is counting words. Assessing Writing Vol. 21 pp. 104–111 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.05.001

• Perelman, L. (August 2013). Critique of Mark D. Shermis & Ben Hammer, “Contrasting State-of-the-Art Automated Scoring of Essays: Analysis.” Journal of Writing Assessment 6:1 http://journalofwritingassessment.org/article.php?article=69

• Perelman, L. (2012). “Mass-Market Writing Assessments as Bullshit.” Writing Assessment in the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of Edward M. White. Ed. Norbert Elliot and Les Perelman. New York, NY: Hampton Press, 2012, pp. 425-438.

• Perelman, L. (2012). Length, Score, Time, & Construct Validity in Holistically Graded Writing Assessments: The Case against Automated Essay Scoring (AES). In New Directions in International Writing Research, Ed. C. Bazerman, C. Dean, K. Lunsford, S. Null, P. Rogers, A. Stansell, and T. Zawacki. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press, pp. 121-132.http://wac.colostate.edu/books/wrab2011/chapter7.pdf

• Powers, D. et al. (2002). Stumping e-rater: Challenging the validity of automated essay scoring. Computers in Human Behavior. 18:2 pp. 103-134.

• Quinlan, T., Higgins, D., & Wolff, S. (2009) Evaluating the Construct-Coverage of the e-rater® Scoring Engine. ETS Research Report 09-01.

• Sandene, B. et al. (2005) Online Assessment in Mathematics and Writing: Reports From the NAEP Technology-Based Assessment Project, Research and Development Series. National Center for Education Statistics Report 2005-457. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED485780.pdf

• Shermis, M. D. (In press). The challenges of emulating human behavior in writing assessment. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293514000373#

• Shermis, M. D. (2014). State-of-the-art automated essay scoring: Competition, results, and future directions from a United States demonstration. Assessing Writing, 20, 53-76

• Shermis, M. D., & Hamner, B. (2013). Contrasting state-of-the-art automated scoring of essays. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions . New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 313-346

• Shermis, M. (May11, 2012). How automated grading can make good writers. Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/11/news/la-ol-automated-scoring-blowback-20120510

• Stevenson, M. Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing. 19, pp.51-65.