Assessment

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential in performing automatic scoring for constructed response assessments. While constructed responses graded by humans are usually based on given grading rubrics, the methods by which LLMs assign scores remain largely unclear. It is also uncertain how closely AI’s scoring process mirrors that of humans or if it adheres to the same grading criteria. To address this gap, this paper uncovers the grading rubrics that LLMs used to score students’ written responses to science tasks and their alignment with human scores. We also examine whether enhancing the alignments can improve scoring accuracy.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential in performing automatic scoring for constructed response assessments. While constructed responses graded by humans are usually based on given grading rubrics, the methods by which LLMs assign scores remain largely unclear. It is also uncertain how closely AI’s scoring process mirrors that of humans or if it adheres to the same grading criteria. To address this gap, this paper uncovers the grading rubrics that LLMs used to score students’ written responses to science tasks and their alignment with human scores. We also examine whether enhancing the alignments can improve scoring accuracy.

We present findings from an analysis of tests of teacher mathematical knowledge identified over a 20-year period of mathematics education literature, and report on how these tests are discussed in the literature, with a focus on validity arguments and evidence.

As use of artificial intelligence (AI) has increased, concerns about AI bias and discrimination have been growing. This paper discusses an application called PyrEval in which natural language processing (NLP) was used to automate assessment and provide feedback on middle school science writing without linguistic discrimination.

As use of artificial intelligence (AI) has increased, concerns about AI bias and discrimination have been growing. This paper discusses an application called PyrEval in which natural language processing (NLP) was used to automate assessment and provide feedback on middle school science writing without linguistic discrimination.

Testing is a part of education around the world; however, there are concerns that consequences of testing is underexplored within current educational scholarship. Moreover, usability studies are rare within education. One aim of the present study was to explore the usability of a mathematics problem-solving test called the Problem Solving Measures–Computer-Adaptive Test (PSM-CAT) designed for grades six to eight students (ages 11–14). The second aim of this mixed-methods research was to unpack consequences of testing validity evidence related to the results and test interpretations, leveraging the voices of participants.

Testing is a part of education around the world; however, there are concerns that consequences of testing is underexplored within current educational scholarship. Moreover, usability studies are rare within education. One aim of the present study was to explore the usability of a mathematics problem-solving test called the Problem Solving Measures–Computer-Adaptive Test (PSM-CAT) designed for grades six to eight students (ages 11–14). The second aim of this mixed-methods research was to unpack consequences of testing validity evidence related to the results and test interpretations, leveraging the voices of participants.

Testing is a part of education around the world; however, there are concerns that consequences of testing is underexplored within current educational scholarship. Moreover, usability studies are rare within education. One aim of the present study was to explore the usability of a mathematics problem-solving test called the Problem Solving Measures–Computer-Adaptive Test (PSM-CAT) designed for grades six to eight students (ages 11–14). The second aim of this mixed-methods research was to unpack consequences of testing validity evidence related to the results and test interpretations, leveraging the voices of participants.

Testing is a part of education around the world; however, there are concerns that consequences of testing is underexplored within current educational scholarship. Moreover, usability studies are rare within education. One aim of the present study was to explore the usability of a mathematics problem-solving test called the Problem Solving Measures–Computer-Adaptive Test (PSM-CAT) designed for grades six to eight students (ages 11–14). The second aim of this mixed-methods research was to unpack consequences of testing validity evidence related to the results and test interpretations, leveraging the voices of participants.

There are few guidelines related to how to implement integrated STEM education in the K-12 science classroom. It is important that teachers have opportunities to reflect on integrated STEM instruction when implemented so that they may further develop their practice. This research aimed to understand how the STEM Observation Protocol (STEM-OP) may be used as a way for teachers to reflect on their integrated STEM practice. This exploratory case study was designed to better understand secondary science teachers’ reflections on the STEM-OP by addressing the following research questions: 1) What are secondary science teachers’ reflections on integrated STEM practices as measured by the STEM-OP? and 2) In what ways do secondary science teachers envision using the STEM-OP as a tool in their practice?