Author : Oyebola Akande 1
Date of Publication :19th October 2021
Abstract: Manual marking of essay type questions challenges may be voluminous answer scripts voluminous, partly subjective marking even with marking guide etc. Currently, the automated essay-marking application did not integrate cognitive models which can reduce time-consuming activities such as marking essay-type examinations. This proposed research aimed to extend the previous automated essay-marking application with cognitive-based models and use a working system to show its practicability. This research, therefore, proposed a framework on which the extension can be based. The framework incorporates inference and reasoning engine, ingestion of data from multiple heterogeneous sources and data analytics on a computer using the neuromorphic chip. Practical implementation of this will help examination bodies like West Africa Examination Council (WAEC) in marking examinations by reducing the cost of marking, reducing the rate of human error, and simplify examination logistics. The system will be evaluated with the existing automated system running on a chip based on Von Neumann Architecture
Reference :
-
- Livingstone, K.A., 2015. The impact of Web 2.0 in Education and its potential for language learning and teaching. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(4), pp.3-14.
- Laurillard, D. (2012): Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. NY: Routledge.
- Lai, K. W. (2011): “Digital technology and the culture of teaching and learning in higher education”, in Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 27 (8): 1263-1275.
- Raturi, S., Hogan, R. & Thaman, K. H. (2011): “Learners‟ Preference for Instructional Delivery Mode: A Case Study from the University of South Pacific (USP)”, in International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 8(6): 17-30.
- O‟Reilly, T. (2006): “People Inside & Web 2.0: An interview with Tim O‟Reilly”.
- Anderson, P. (2007): “What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education”.
- Gaffar, K. & Singh, L. (2012): “Supporting Computer Science Education Using Web 2.0 and Social Software”, in Journal of Arts, Science and Technology 5(1): 65-91.
- Collins, C. (2009): “Web 2.0 Technology and Education. Education 6620: Issues and Trends in Educational Computing”.
- Madden, M. & Fox, S. (2006): “Riding the waves of “Web 2.0”: More than a buzzword, but still not easily defined”, in Pew Internet Project, pp. 1-6. (Unpublished).
- Maloney, E. (2007): “What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning”, in The Chronicle of Higher Education 25(18): B26.
- Mason, R. & Rennie, F. (2010): “Evolving technologies”, in Rudestam, K. E. & SchoenholtzRead, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Online Learning. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, pp.91-128.
- Pence, H. E. (2007): “Preparing for the real web generation”, in Journal of Educational Technology Systems 35(3): 347-356.
-
- Shivam G., Arpan Kumar K., Abdullah B., Wassan AlKhowaiter. (2018). Big data with cognitive computing: A review of the future. International Journal of Information Management, 12.
- Kelly, J. (2015). Computing cognition, and the future of knowing. IBM Research.
- IBM International Technical Support Organization. (2017). Building Cognitive Applications with IBM Watson Services: Volume 1 Getting Started. Poughkeepsie: IBM Redbooks.
- Computer Technology Association. (2016). Ginni Rometty Keynote: CES 2016 (YouTube).
- Amalia A., Gunawan D., Fithri Y. and Aulia I. (2019). Automated Bahasa Indonesia essay evaluation with latent semantic analysis. Journal of Physics, 1-9. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1235/1/012100
- Chun Then Lim, Chih How Bong, Wee Sian Wong and Nung Kion Lee. (2021). A Comprehensive Review of Automated Essay Scoring (AES) Research and Development. Pertanika J. Sci. & Technol., 21(3), 1875- 1899.
- Page, E. B. (2003). Project Essay Grade: PEG. In S. &. M. D., & J. B. Mark D. Shermis (Ed.), Automated Essay Scoring: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective (pp. 43-54). Mahwah, New Jessey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Elliot, S. (2003). IntelliMetric: From here to Validity. In S. Elliot, & S. &. M. D. (Ed.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 71-86). Mahwah, New Jessey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
- Shermis Mark D. & Burstein Jill C. (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
- Kaja Zupanc & Zoran Bosnic´. (2015). Advances in the Field of Automated Essay Evaluation. Informatica, 39, 383-395. [12] Dikli, S. (2006). Automated Essay Scoring. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 7, 49-62.
- Foltz, Peter. W., Laham, Darrel., & Landauer, Thomas. K., (1999). The Intelligent Essay Assessor: Applications to Educational Technology. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 939-944.
- Al-Shalabi, E. F. (2016). An Automated System for Essay Scoring of Online Exams in Arabic based on Stemming Techniques and Levenshtein Edit Operations. IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 13(5), 45-50.
- Burstein, J. (2003). The E-rater® Scoring Engine: Automated Essay Scoring With Natural Language Processing. In J. Burstein, & S. &. Mark. D. (Ed.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 113-122). Mahwah, New Jessy: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers