Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
He, Yulan; Hui, Siu C.; Quan, Tho T.
Languages: English
Types: Article
Summary writing is an important part of many English Language Examinations. As grading students' summary writings is a very time-consuming task, computer-assisted assessment will help teachers carry out the grading more effectively. Several techniques such as latent semantic analysis (LSA), n-gram co-occurrence and BLEU have been proposed to support automatic evaluation of summaries. However, their performance is not satisfactory for assessing summary writings. To improve the performance, this paper proposes an ensemble approach that integrates LSA and n-gram co-occurrence. As a result, the proposed ensemble approach is able to achieve high accuracy and improve the performance quite substantially compared with current techniques. A summary assessment system based on the proposed approach has also been developed.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Arroyo, I., Beck, J., Woolf, B., Beal, C., Schultz, K., 2000. Macroadapting animalwatch to gender and cognitive di®erences with respect to hint interactivity and symbolism. In: Gauthier, G., Frasson, C., VanLehn, K. (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems. LNCS 1839. pp. 574{583.
    • Bransford, J., Brown, A., Cocking, R., 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, and Experience & School. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
    • Chang, K., Chen, I., Sung, Y., 2002. The e®ect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education 71 (1), 5{23.
    • Chi, M., Siler, S., Jeong, H., Yamaguchi, T., Hausmann, R., 2001. Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science 25, 471{533.
    • Clark, R., 2004. Design document for a guided experiential learning course. Final report on contract DAAD 19-99-D-0046-0004 from TRADOC to the Institute for Creative Technologies and the Rossier School of Education.
    • Domingos, P., 2000. Bayesian averaging of classi¯ers and the over¯tting problem. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, pp. 223{230.
    • Landauer, T., Foltz, P., Laham, D., 1998. Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes 25, 259{284.
    • Landauer, T., Laham, D., Rehder, B., Schreiner, M. E., 1997. How well can passage meaning be derived without using word order? a comparison of latent semantic analysis and humans. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
    • Lane, H., August 2006. Intelligent tutoring systems: Prospects for guided practice and e±cient learning. In: Army's Science of Learning Workshop. Hampton, VA.
    • Lee, J., 2005. O-Level English. Singapore Asian Publications (S) Pte Ltd.
    • Lin, C.-Y., July 2004. ROUGE: a package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Text Summarization Branches Out (WAS 2004). Barcelona, Spain.
    • Lin, C.-Y., Hovy, E., 2003. Automatic evaluation of summaries using n-gram co-occurrence statistics. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology. pp. 71{78.
    • Miller, G. A., Fellbaum, C., Tengi, R., Wake¯eld, P., Poddar, R., Langone, H., Haskell, B., 2006. WordNet: a lexical database for the English language. Princeton University Cognitive Science Laboratory.
    • Olson, J., Platt, J., 2000. Teaching Children and Adolescents with Special Needs. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, Ch. The Instructional Cycle, pp. 170{197.
    • Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., jing Zhu, W., 2002. BLEU: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. pp. 311{318.
    • P¶erez, D., Alfonseca, E., Rodr¶³guez, P., 2004. Upper bounds of the bleu algorithm applied to assessing student essays. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Association for Educational Assessment (IAEA) Conference.
    • Perez, D., Gliozzo, A., Strapparava, C., Alfonseca, E., Rodriguez, P., Magnini, B., May 2005. Automatic assessment of students' free-text answers underpinned by the combination of a bleu-inspired algorithm and latent semantic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 18th International FLAIRS Conference. Clearwater Beach, Florida.
    • Rajamanikum, K., 2000. English language (Yearly) Worked Solutions. Redspot Publishing Singapore.
    • Shute, V., Hansen, E., Almond, R., 2007. Evaluating ACED: The impact of feedback and adaptivity on learning. In: Luckin, Koedinger (Eds.), Arti¯- cial Intelligence in Education. IOS Press, pp. 230{237.
    • Timms, M., 2007. Using item response theory (IRT) to select hints in an ITS. In: Luckin, Koedinger (Eds.), Arti¯cial Intelligence in Education. IOS Press, pp. 213{221.
    • Vygotsky, L., 1962. Thought and Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
    • Wheway, V., 2001. Using boosting to simplify classi¯cation models. In: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining. Washington, DC, USA, pp. 558{565.
    • Zipitria, I., Elorriaga, J., Arruate, A., de IIarraza, A., 2004. From human to automatic summary evaluation. In: 7th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring System.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article