Talk:Automated essay scoring

Untitled

I am the original author of this article. I am employed by a vendor of AES services. I believe I was able to do this without conflict of interest. I wrote the article by combining and condensing information from 22 published articles, cited in the footnotes. I stuck to the "neutral point of view" and "no original research" guidelines.

AES is a burgeoning industry, surely noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. Probably most of the people who are qualified to write such an article work for one of the vendors. Gwil (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't self-determine whether your information is biased or not. And, you have a conflict of interest by your position and that conflict cannot be avoided unless you quit. This article suffers from several problems, but perhaps the biggest is that no information is given about how well computers perform in comparison to humans. There is no reason to spend so much time on how such a determination is made, people can look up inter-rater reliability if they want to. The comment about the Turing test needs to go--the performance of AES programs is not a Turing test. Your assertion that only people involved in developing and selling AES products can write a WP article is not true in my opinion. In fact, someone knowledgable but outside the business is required to be an unbiased and valid overview. You did well to post your background on the talk page and your initial effort is valuable. Robotczar (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. If you have problems with the article, you can fix them. Given that the technology is new, it only makes sense that those that are "inside" the industry are better qualified to understand the subject than those that are not. Your comments seem to indicate a lack of good faith, despite the fact that the author declares his status within the industry and states his belief that he conformed to wikipedia policy. From this Wikipedia reader's perspective, the article is a good start, is better than nothing and despite your criticism you haven't really contributed anything. But my primary comment is that, as a reader, I'd be interested in seeing some examples comparing human grading to automated grading, most particularly "worst case scenarios" as my skeptical sense is that someone could conceivably craft an essay that would appear nonsensical to a human reader, but might score well by an automated system. I'm thinking about the idea of throwing together a bunch of "buzz-words" that might fool an automated system into a high grade. Also, if a system can be developed that auto-grades text, then it seems to me that another system might also be developed that auto-creates it, and what will the auto-grading system think of auto-created text? One system creates gibberish and another system validates it as being "high quality"? Finally it occurs to me that an automated grading system need not be reserved for purely end-of-quarter academic grading, and that automated grading systems could be made available online, for free, for use by students as a pre-submission check. They also might be useful to professors as a pre-grading stage where the automated system highlights errors and deficiencies thereby making the process faster and more efficient for the human grader.Jonny Quick (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Natees44. Peer reviewers: Jcolten.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Automated essay scoring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007070145/http://clickit.ort.org.il/files/upl/224004906/934404432.pdf to http://clickit.ort.org.il/files/upl/224004906/934404432.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309232819/http://echo.edres.org:8080/betsy/three_prominent.htm to http://echo.edres.org:8080/betsy/three_prominent.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308214828/http://echo.edres.org:8080/betsy/bayesian_ov.htm to http://echo.edres.org:8080/betsy/bayesian_ov.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113040838/http://irt.com.ne.kr/data/automatedscoring1.pdf to http://irt.com.ne.kr/data/automatedscoring1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)