Basic Search / Detailed Display

Author: 許福元
Fu-Yuan Hsu
Thesis Title: 基於分散式表徵語意測量之讀後理解自動化評量系統
A Distributed Representation Based Semantic Measure Approach for Automatic After-Reading Comprehension Assessments
Advisor: 李漢銘
HAHN-MING LEE
Committee: 李漢銘
Hahn-Ming Lee
邱舉明
Ge-Ming Chiu
鄧惟中
Wei-Chung Teng
陳志銘
Chih-Ming Chen
陳柏琳
Berlin Chen
曾元顯
Yuen-Hsien Tseng
張道行
Tao-Hsing Chang
Degree: 博士
Doctor
Department: 電資學院 - 資訊工程系
Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering
Thesis Publication Year: 2018
Graduation Academic Year: 106
Language: 英文
Pages: 69
Keywords (in Chinese): 讀後理解評量自動化摘要評分試題難度評估語意相似度詞向量
Keywords (in other languages): After-Reading Comprehension Assessments, Automatic Summary Scoring, Item Difficulty Estimation, Semantic Similarity, Word Embedding
Reference times: Clicks: 220Downloads: 1
Share:
School Collection Retrieve National Library Collection Retrieve Error Report
  • 閱讀力已成為現代公民不可或缺的關鍵能力,近年來世界各國為改善學校閱讀教學環境,積極地導入適性化閱讀平台,藉以提升學生閱讀理解能力。適性化閱讀平台必須能準確地測量學生的閱讀能力、客觀地評估圖書的文本難度,以及快速地評量學生的讀後成效。才能將學生閱讀能力與圖書文本難度進行適配,並有效地掌握學生的閱讀狀況。但在現有適性閱讀平台中,尚未能提供自動化讀後理解評量的設計來降低老師在閱讀教學上的負擔。傳統上老師會透過選擇題或撰寫摘要來進行讀後理解評量的活動,但為了滿足學生廣泛閱讀的需求,老師必須為每一本學生所閱讀的圖書設計試題或批閱摘要,對於現場教學的老師幾乎是不可能達成的任務。老師或許能集合眾人智慧或試題自動生成技術來生成試題。但無論如何都必須有效掌控試題難度,才能確保達成所要評量的目標。目前主要透過預試來取得準確的試題難度,但需耗費大量人力與時間成本,且有試題安全的疑慮。此外,目前現有摘要評分系統主要是針對單一主題與短篇文章進行設計,對於長篇且多主題的文本可能就不適用。為了解決以上所面對的困境,本研究提出基於分散式表徵的語意量測方法,利用題幹與選項之間的語意相似度做為試題難度的特徵,再透過機器學習的方法進行訓練,建立自動化試題難度的評估模型。同樣的量測方法運用在自動摘要評分,則是計算圖書中每一個句子的語意向量,再透過分群技術自動取得圖書摘要後,建立自動化讀後摘要的評分模型。實驗結果顯示本研究所提出的方法具有相當良好的效能。


    Reading ability has become an indispensable ability for modern citizens, and the past few years have seen many countries striving to improve their reading education by actively introducing adaptive reading platforms to improve students' reading comprehension. Adaptive reading platforms must accurately measure students' reading ability, objectively assess the difficulty of books, and quickly assess after-reading comprehension. Only then could they accurately pair students with suitably challenging texts and grasp the dynamic reading situation of students. However, existing adaptive reading platforms have not been able to provide an automatic after-reading assessment utility to reduce the burden on reading teachers. Traditionally, teachers perform after-reading assessments by administering multiple-choice tests or by requesting their students write summaries. However, this means that teachers must design test items or grade summaries for each book that students read. It is a never-ending, arduous task for teachers. To fulfill students' needs for extensive reading, teachers may design test items through collective wisdom or automatic item generation technologies. Regardless, to ensure that the assessment objectives are achieved, it is necessary to control the difficulty of mass-generated items effectively. Currently, this is accomplished mainly by using pretests to get accurate item difficulty, but doing so is laborious, time-consuming, and leaves doubts about the safety of the items. Current summary scoring systems are mainly designed for single topics and short articles, and may not apply well to long texts. To solve these difficulties, this study proposes a semantic similarity measurement based on distributed representations and utilizes the semantic similarity between a stem, an answer, and distractors as the semantic features of item difficulty. Then, through machine learning, an estimation model can be trained that evaluates the difficulty of automatically generated test items. The same measurement method is used in automatic summary scoring: First, the semantic vector of each sentence in the text is calculated, then clustering technology is used to obtain book summaries, which are then used to establish a scoring model for after-reading summaries. Experimental results show that the method proposed in this study has reasonably good performance.

    CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 1 1.1.1 MULTIPLE-CHOICE ITEM DIFFICULTY 2 1.1.2 AFTER-READING SUMMARIZATION 3 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT 4 1.2.1 CHALLENGES IN AUTOMATIC ESTIMATION OF ITEM DIFFICULTY 4 1.2.2 CHALLENGES IN AUTOMATIC SUMMARY SCORING 5 1.3 OBJECTIVES 6 1.4 CONTRIBUTIONS 7 1.5 DISSERTATION OUTLINE 8 CHAPTER 2 RELATED WORK 9 2.1 SEMANTIC SIMILARITY MEASUREMENT 9 2.2 ITEM DIFFICULTY ESTIMATION 11 2.3 SUMMARY SCORING 13 2.4 AUTOMATIC TEXT SUMMARIZATION 15 CHAPTER 3 METHOD 17 3.1 SEMANTIC SIMILARITY APPROACH 17 3.2 AFTER-READING COMPREHENSION ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 18 3.2.1 DESIGN OF AUTOMATIC ESTIMATION OF ITEM DIFFICULTY 20 3.2.2 DESIGN OF AUTOMATIC SUMMARY SCORING 21 3.3 DOCUMENT PREPROCESSING 21 3.4 SEMANTIC SPACE CONSTRUCTION 22 3.5 SEMANTIC FEATURE EXTRACTION 23 3.5.1 ITEM DIFFICULTY FEATURES EXTRACTION 23 3.5.2 SUMMARY FEATURES EXTRACTION 26 3.6 MODEL CREATION 27 3.6.1 ITEM DIFFICULTY ESTIMATION MODEL 27 3.6.2 MODEL SUMMARY BUILDER 28 3.7 RESULT PREDICTION 29 3.7.1 ITEM DIFFICULTY PREDICTOR 29 3.7.2 SUMMARY SCORE ESTIMATOR 29 CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTS 32 4.1 MATERIALS 32 4.1.1 CORPORA 32 4.1.2 PAST SOCIAL STUDIES ITEMS 33 4.1.3 READING BOOKS AND SUMMARIES 35 4.2 PROCEDURES 35 4.3 EVALUATION 36 4.3.1 ITEM DIFFICULTY ESTIMATION EXPERIMENT 36 4.3.1 SUMMARY SCORING EXPERIMENT 37 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 38 5.1 RESULTS 38 5.1.1 ITEM DIFFICULTY ESTIMATION EXPERIMENT 38 5.1.2 AUTOMATIC SUMMARY SCORING EXPERIMENT 41 5.2 DISCUSSION 43 5.2.1 SEMANTIC SIMILARITY BETWEEN ITEM ELEMENTS AND ITEM DIFFICULTY 43 5.2.2 ESTIMATION ACCURACIES OF PROPOSED METHOD AND PRETESTING 47 5.2.3 PREDICTION ACCURACIES OF AUTOMATIC SUMMARY SCORING SYSTEM 48 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 50 REFERENCES 52

    References
    [1] K. McCarthy, "Adaptive Reading and Writing Instruction in iSTART and W-Pal," in Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, Florida, USA, 2017, pp. 561-566: AAAI Press.
    [2] W. Wang and N. Kingston, "Adaptive Testing With a Hierarchical Item Response Theory Model," Applied Psychological Measurement, p. 0146621618765714, 2018.
    [3] E. M. Choe, J. L. Kern, and H.-H. Chang, "Optimizing the Use of Response Times for Item Selection in Computerized Adaptive Testing," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 135-158, 2018/04/01 2017.
    [4] Y. T. Sung, T. H. Chang, W. C. Lin, K. S. Hsieh, and K. E. Chang, "CRIE: An automated analyzer for Chinese texts," Behavior Research Methods, journal article vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 1238-1251, 2016.
    [5] Y.-T. Sung, J.-L. Chen, J.-H. Cha, H.-C. Tseng, T.-H. Chang, and K.-E. Chang, "Constructing and validating readability models: the method of integrating multilevel linguistic features with machine learning," Behavior Research Methods, journal article vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 340-354, June 01 2015.
    [6] C. DeMars, Item response theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
    [7] M. J. Gierl, O. Bulut, Q. Guo, and X. Zhang, "Developing, Analyzing, and Using Distractors for Multiple-Choice Tests in Education: A Comprehensive Review," Review of Educational Research, vol. 87, no. 6, August 17 2017.
    [8] K. E. Chang, Y. T. Sung, and I. D. Chen, "The Effect of Concept Mapping to Enhance Text Comprehension and Summarization," The Journal of Experimental Education, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 5-23, 2002/01/01 2002.
    [9] W. Lenhard, H. Baier, D. Endlich, W. Schneider, and J. Hoffmann, "Rethinking strategy instruction: direct reading strategy instruction versus computer-based guided practice," Journal of Research in Reading, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 223-240, 2013.
    [10] L. Mintz, D. Stefanescu, S. Feng, S. D'Mello, and A. Graesser, Automatic Assessment of Student Reading Comprehension from Short Summaries. 2014.
    [11] E. Kintsch, "Macroprocesses and Microprocesses in the Development of Summarization Skill," Cognition and Instruction, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 161-195, 1990/09/01 1990.
    [12] A. L. Brown and S. S. Smiley, "Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of metacognitive development," Child Development, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 1977.
    [13] A. L. Brown and J. D. Day, "Macrorules for summarizing texts: the development of expertise," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1-14, 1983/02/01/ 1983.
    [14] Y. Attali, L. Saldivia, C. Jackson, F. Schuppan, and W. Wanamaker, "Estimating Item Difficulty With Comparative Judgments," ETS Research Report Series, vol. 2014, no. 2, pp. 1-8, 2014.
    [15] A. Loukina, S. Y. Yoon, J. Sakano, Y. Wei, and K. Sheehan, "Textual complexity as a predictor of difficulty of listening items in language proficiency tests," in Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2016), Osaka, Japan, 2016, pp. 3245-3253, Osaka, Japan: The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee, 2016.
    [16] Y. H. El Masri, S. Ferrara, P. W. Foltz, and J. A. Baird, "Predicting item difficulty of science national curriculum tests: the case of key stage 2 assessments," The Curriculum Journal, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 59-82, 2017/01/02 2017.
    [17] A. Pollitt, A. Ahmed, and V. Crisp, "The demands on examination syllabuses and question papers," in Techniques for monitoring the comparability of examination standards, P. Newton, J.-A. Baird, H. Goldstein, H. Patrick, and P. Tymms, Eds. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2007, pp. pp. 166–206.
    [18] S. Ferrara, D. Svetina, S. Skucha, and A. H. Davidson, "Test Development with Performance Standards and Achievement Growth in Mind," Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 3-15, 2011.
    [19] K. M. Sheehan, "Validating Automated Measures of Text Complexity," Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 35-43, 2017.
    [20] F. Ronzano, L. E. Anke, and H. Saggion, "Taln at semeval-2016 task 11: Modelling complex words by contextual, lexical and semantic features," in Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016), 2016, pp. 1011-1016.
    [21] H. Li, Z. Cai, and A. C. Graesser, "Computerized summary scoring: crowdsourcing-based latent semantic analysis," Behavior Research Methods, journal article November 03 2017.
    [22] T. Sladoljev-Agejev and J. Šnajder, "Using Analytic Scoring Rubrics in the Automatic Assessment of College-Level Summary Writing Tasks in L2," in Proceedings of the The 8th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, Taipei, Taiwan, 2017, pp. 181–186.
    [23] D. Wade-Stein and E. Kintsch, "Summary Street: Interactive Computer Support for Writing," Cognition and Instruction, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 333-362, 2004/09/01 2004.
    [24] Y. T. Sung, C. N. Liao, T. H. Chang, C. L. Chen, and K. E. Chang, "The effect of online summary assessment and feedback system on the summary writing on 6th graders: The LSA-based technique," Computers & Education, vol. 95, pp. 1-18, 4// 2016.
    [25] B. J. Zimmerman, "Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview," Theory Into Practice, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 64-70, 2002/05/01 2002.
    [26] B. J. Zimmerman, Academic studing and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspective. 1998, pp. 73-86.
    [27] S. E. Embretson and C. D. Wetzel, "Component Latent Trait Models for Paragraph Comprehension Tests," Applied Psychological Measurement, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 175-193, 1987.
    [28] J. S. Gorin and S. E. Embretson, "Item Difficulty Modeling of Paragraph Comprehension Items," Applied Psychological Measurement, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 394-411, 2006.
    [29] I. Kirsch, "The International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS): Understanding What was Measured," ETS Research Report Series, vol. 2001, no. 2, pp. i-61, 2001.
    [30] H. M. Abdulghani, F. Ahmad, G. G. Ponnamperuma, M. S. Khalil, and A. Aldrees, "The relationship between non-functioning distractors and item difficulty of multiple choice questions: A descriptive analysis," Journal of Health Specialties, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 148-151, 2014.
    [31] V. M. Pho, A. L. Ligozat, and B. Grau, "Distractor Quality Evaluation in Multiple Choice Questions," in Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2015, pp. 377-386: Springer.
    [32] K. Y. Chen, K. W. Shih, S. H. Liu, B. Chen, and H. M. Wang, "Incorporating paragraph embeddings and density peaks clustering for spoken document summarization," in 2015 IEEE Workshop on Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding (ASRU), 2015, pp. 207-214.
    [33] J. M. Conroy and D. P. O'leary, "Text summarization via hidden Markov models," presented at the Proceedings of the 24th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2001.
    [34] G. Murray, S. Renals, and J. Carletta, "Extractive Summarization of Meeting Recordings," in In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, 2005, pp. 593-596.
    [35] J. Zhang and P. Fung, "Speech summarization without lexical features for Mandarin broadcast news," presented at the Human Language Technologies 2007: The Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics; Companion Volume, Short Papers, Rochester, New York, 2007.
    [36] G. Erkan and D. Radev, LexRank: Graph-based Lexical Centrality As Salience in Text Summarization. 2004.
    [37] R. Mihalcea and P. Tarau, TextRank: Bringing Order into Text. 2004.
    [38] X. Wan and J. Yang, "Multi-document summarization using cluster-based link analysis," presented at the Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, Singapore, Singapore, 2008.
    [39] Y. Gong and X. Liu, "Generic text summarization using relevance measure and latent semantic analysis," presented at the Proceedings of the 24th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2001.
    [40] Y. T. Chen, B. Chen, and H. M. Wang, "A Probabilistic Generative Framework for Extractive Broadcast News Speech Summarization," IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 95-106, 2009.
    [41] A. Rodriguez and A. Laio, "Clustering by fast search and find of density peaks," Science, vol. 344, no. 6191, pp. 1492-1496, 2014.
    [42] C. Y. Lin and E. Hovy, "Automatic evaluation of summaries using N-gram co-occurrence statistics," presented at the Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology - Volume 1, Edmonton, Canada, 2003.
    [43] M. Al-Smadi, Z. Jaradat, M. Al-Ayyoub, and Y. Jararweh, "Paraphrase identification and semantic text similarity analysis in Arabic news tweets using lexical, syntactic, and semantic features," Information Processing & Management, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 640-652, 2017/05/01/ 2017.
    [44] P. Gupta, R. E. Banchs, and P. Rosso, "Continuous space models for CLIR," Information Processing & Management, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 359-370, 2017/03/01/ 2017.
    [45] Y. Jiang, W. Bai, X. Zhang, and J. Hu, "Wikipedia-based information content and semantic similarity computation," Information Processing & Management, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 248-265, 2017/01/01/ 2017.
    [46] M. Kocher and J. Savoy, "Distance measures in author profiling," Information Processing & Management, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1103-1119, 2017/09/01/ 2017.
    [47] O. Vechtomova, "Disambiguating context-dependent polarity of words: An information retrieval approach," Information Processing & Management, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1062-1079, 2017/09/01/ 2017.
    [48] T. Kenter and M. de Rijke, "Short Text Similarity with Word Embeddings," in Proceedings of the 24th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management (CIKM 2015), Melbourne, Australia, 2015, vol. 15, pp. 1411-1420, New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2015.
    [49] L. Meng, R. Huang, and J. Gu, "A review of semantic similarity measures in wordnet," International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-12, 2013.
    [50] M. Baroni, G. Dinu, and G. Kruszewski, "Don't count, predict! A systematic comparison of context-counting vs. context-predicting semantic vectors," in Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2014), Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 2014, pp. 238-247: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [51] P. D. Turney and P. Pantel, "From Frequency to Meaning: Vector Space Models of Semantics," Journal of Articial Intelligence Research, vol. 37, pp. 141-188, 2010.
    [52] Y. Bengio, R. Ducharme, P. Vincent, and C. Jauvin, "A neural probabilistic language model," Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 3, pp. 1137-1155, 2003.
    [53] L. Qiu, Y. Cao, Z. Nie, Y. Yu, and Y. Rui, "Learning word representation considering proximity and ambiguity," presented at the Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Québec City, Québec, Canada, 2014.
    [54] D. Tang, F. Wei, N. Yang, M. Zhou, T. Liu, and B. Qin, "Learning Sentiment-Specific Word Embedding for Twitter Sentiment Classification," in Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 2014, vol. 1, pp. 1555-1565: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [55] T. Mikolov, K. Chen, G. Corrado, and J. Dean, "Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space," in Proceedings of Workshop at International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2013), Scottsdale, Arizona, 2013, pp. 1301-3781.
    [56] F. C. Fernández-Reyes, J. Hermosillo-Valadez, and M. Montes-y-Gómez, "A Prospect-Guided global query expansion strategy using word embeddings," Information Processing & Management, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 1-13, 2018/01/01/ 2018.
    [57] I. Kirsch, M. L. Lennon, K. Yamamoto, and M. von Davier, "Large-Scale Assessments of Adult Literacy," in Advancing Human Assessment: The Methodological, Psychological and Policy Contributions of ETS, R. E. Bennett and M. von Davier, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 285-310.
    [58] R. Freedle and I. Kostin, "The Prediction of SAT Reading Comprehension Item Difficulty for Expository Prose Passages," Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, Research report 91-29, April 1991.
    [59] R. Freedle and I. Kostin, "The Prediction of GRE Reading Comprehension Item Difficulty for Expository Prose Passages for each of three Item Types: Main Ideas, Inferences and Explicit Statements," Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, Research report 91-59, April 1992.
    [60] R. Freedle and I. Kostin, "The Prediction of TOEFL Reading Comprehension Item Difficulty for Expository Prose Passages for three Item Types: Main Ideas, Inference, and Supporting Idea Items," Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, Research report 93-13, May 1993.
    [61] R. F. Boldt, "GRE Analytical Reasoning Item Statistics Prediction Study," Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, Research report 98-37, Aug. 1998.
    [62] R. F. Boldt and R. O. Freedle, "Using a Neural Net to Predict Item Difficulty," Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, Research report 96-31, Nov. 1996.
    [63] T. Lumley, A. Routitsky, J. Mendelovits, and D. Ramalingam, "A framework for predicting item difficulty in reading tests," presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 13-17, 2012. Available: http://research.acer.edu.au/pisa/5
    [64] M. Sano, "Automated Capturing of Psycho-linguistic Features in Reading Assessment Text," presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), Chicago, Illinois, April 17-19, 2015.
    [65] Y. Susanti, H. Nishikawa, T. Tokunaga, and O. Hiroyuki, "Item Difficulty Analysis of English Vocabulary Questions," in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2016), Rome, Italy, 2016, pp. 267-274: SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications.
    [66] R. Garner, "Efficient Text Summarization Costs and Benefits," The Journal of Educational Research, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 275-279, 1982/05/01 1982.
    [67] M. H. Head, J. E. Readence, and R. R. Buss, "An examination of summary writing as a measure of reading comprehension," Reading Research and Instruction, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1-11, 1989/06/01 1989.
    [68] A. Nenkova and R. Passonneau, "Evaluating Content Selection in Summarization: The Pyramid Method " in In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2004( HLT-NAACL 2004), Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 2004, pp. 145–152: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [69] S. Deerwester, S. T. Dumais, G. W. Furnas, T. K. Landauer, and R. Harshman, "Indexing by latent semantic analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 391-407, 1990.
    [70] T. K. Landauer, P. W. Foltz, and D. Laham, "An introduction to latent semantic analysis," Discourse Processes, vol. 25, no. 2-3, pp. 259-284, 1998/01/01 1998.
    [71] G. Jorge-Botana, J. M. Luzón, I. Gómez-Veiga, and J. I. Martín-Cordero, "Automated LSA Assessment of Summaries in Distance Education:Some Variables to Be Considered," Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 341-364, 2015.
    [72] R. Olmos, J. A. León, G. Jorge-Botana, and I. Escudero, "Using latent semantic analysis to grade brief summaries: A study exploring texts at different academic levels," Literary and Linguistic Computing, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 388-403, 2013.
    [73] E. Kintsch, D. Steinhart, G. Stahl, and L. R. Group, "Developing Summarization Skills through the Use of LSA-Based Feedback," Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 87-109, 2000.
    [74] H. Liu, H. Yu, and Z.-H. Deng, Multi-Document Summarization Based on Two-Level Sparse Representation Model. 2015.
    [75] C. Cortes and V. Vapnik, "Support-Vector Networks," Machine learning, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 273-297, September 1995.
    [76] H. Chih-Wei and L. Chih-Jen, "A comparison of methods for multiclass support vector machines," IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 415-425, 2002.
    [77] Q. V. Le and T. Mikolov, "Distributed representations of sentences and documents," in Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2014), Beijing, China, 2014, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 1188-1196: PMLR.ORG, 2014.
    [78] T. Landauer and S. Dooley, "Latent semantic analysis: theory, method and application," presented at the Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, Boulder, Colorado, 2002.
    [79] B. Hu, Z. Lu, H. Li, and Q. Chen, "Convolutional neural network architectures for matching natural language sentences," in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Montreal, Canada, 2014, pp. 2042-2050, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [80] U. Von Luxburg, "A tutorial on spectral clustering," Statistics and Computing, journal article vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 395-416, December 01 2007.
    [81] J. MacQueen, "Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations," in Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Volume 1: Statistics, Berkeley, Calif., 1967, pp. 281-297: University of California Press.
    [82] R. K. Hambleton and R. W. Jones, "Comparison of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory and Their Applications to Test Development," Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 535-556, 1993.
    [83] L. Bickman and D. Rog, The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, 2 ed. Thousand Oaks, California, 2009. [Online]. Available: http://methods.sagepub.com/book/the-sage-handbook-of-applied-social-research-methods-2e. Accessed on 2018/03/26.
    [84] T. G. Bond and C. M. Fox, "Basic Principles of the Rasch Model," in Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2015, pp. 36-59.
    [85] C. C. Chang and C. J. Lin, "LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines," ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1-27, 2011.
    [86] C. R. Huang et al., Chinese Sketch Engine and the extraction of grammatical collocations. 2005.
    [87] K. J. Chen, C. R. Huang, L. Chang, and H. L. Hsu, SINICA CORPUS: Design methodology for balanced corpora. 1996.
    [88] Y. T. Sung, T. Y. Chao, and F. L. Tseng, "Reexamining the relationship between test anxiety and learning achievement: An individual-differences perspective," Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 46, pp. 241-252, 7// 2016.
    [89] T. K. Yeh, C. Y. Chang, C. Y. Hu, T. C. Yeh, and M. Y. Lin, "Association of catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) polymorphism and academic achievement in a Chinese cohort," Brain and Cognition, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 300-305, December 2009.
    [90] R. C. P. E. T. NTNU, "The examination administration and item development research report of the Basic Competence TEST 2001-2013 and the Comprehensive Assessment Program 2013-2015 in Taiwan," in "RCPET Technical Report Series," National Taiwan Normal University, TaipeiRCPET-104-001, August 2015, vol. 2015 Available: National Taiwan Normal University.
    [91] O. Cokluk, E. Gul, and C. Dogan-Gul, "Examining Differential Item Functions of Different Item Ordered Test Forms According to Item Difficulty Levels," Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, vol. 16, no. 1, 2016.
    [92] R. C. P. E. T. NTNU, "The design of item difficulty level," in "RCPET Technical Report Series," National Taiwan Normal University, TaipeiRCPET-105-001, January 2016, vol. 2016 Available: National Taiwan Normal University.
    [93] B. G. Chen, H. X. Zhou, S. Dunlap, and C. A. Perfetti, "Age of acquisition effects in reading Chinese: Evidence in favour of the arbitrary mapping hypothesis," British Journal of Psychology, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 499-516, 2007.

    無法下載圖示 Full text public date 2019/08/23 (Intranet public)
    Full text public date This full text is not authorized to be published. (Internet public)
    Full text public date 2019/08/23 (National library)
    QR CODE