EQUATION-BASED ASSESSMENT GRADING METHOD AND PARTICIPANT RESPONSE SYSTEM EMPLOYING SAME

• US 20110318724A1
• Filed: 06/27/2011
• Published: 12/29/2011
• Est. Priority Date: 06/25/2010
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Smart Technologies ULC (Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.)
• Original Assignee: Smart Technologies ULC (Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.)
• Inventors: LABINE, DAVID, WENZEL, LOTHAR, CHU, ALBERT
• Granted Patent: US 9,117,375 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 434/350
• CPC Class Codes: G09B 19/02 Counting; Calculating abacus G06C1/00
• CPC Class Codes: G09B 7/08 characterised by modifying the teaching programme in response to a wrong answer, e.g. repeating the question, supplying further information

Abstract

A computerized assessment grading method comprises creating a syntax tree for a received equation-based response to at least one assessment question and a syntax tree for at least one solution to the at least one question, comparing the syntax trees, and grading the response based on the results of the comparison.

Claims

1. A computerized assessment grading method comprising:

creating a syntax tree for a received equation-based response to at least one assessment question and a syntax tree for at least one solution to the at least one question;

comparing the syntax trees; and

grading the response based on the results of the comparison.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the grading method is carried out according to a selected grading methodology.

3. The method of claim 2 wherein the selected grading methodology is selected from a plurality of different grading methodologies.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the plurality of different grading methodologies at least comprise an Order Equivalence grading methodology, a Content Equivalence grading methodology, and a Formal Equivalence grading methodology.

5. The method of claim 1 wherein said creating comprises parsing the response and the at least one solution into tree-shaped hierarchies of operators and operands thereby to form the syntax trees.

6. The method of claim 5 wherein said creating further comprises normalizing the syntax trees.

7. The method of claim 6 wherein during said normalizing, the syntax trees are normalized into canonical form where common operators are simplified to a single n-ary operator.

8. The method of claim 5 wherein the tree-shaped hierarchies of operators and operands are generally based on orders of operation.

9. The method of claim 8 wherein operations to be performed first are placed at the bottom of the syntax trees and operations to be performed last are placed at the top of the syntax trees.

10. The method of claim 1 wherein said comparing comprises determining the similarity between nodes of the syntax trees.

11. The method of claim 1 wherein said comparing comprises determining if the syntax trees comprise the same nodes.

12. The method of claim 11 wherein when the syntax trees comprise the same nodes, said grading comprises grading the response as correct.

13. The method of claim 11 wherein said comparing further comprises, when the syntax trees comprise the same nodes, determining the existence of operator order equivalence.

14. The method of claim 13 wherein when the syntax trees comprise the same nodes and operator order equivalence is determined, said grading comprises grading the response as correct.

15. The method of claim 11 wherein said comparing further comprises, when the syntax trees do not comprise the same nodes, determining if the response and at least one solution comprise the same solution sets.

16. The method of claim 15 wherein when the response and at least one solution comprise the same solution sets, said grading comprises grading the response as correct.

17. The method of claim 10 wherein said grading comprises awarding a score based on the extent to which nodes of the syntax trees match.

18. The method of claim 10 wherein said creating comprises parsing the response and the at least one solution into tree-shaped hierarchies of operators and operands thereby to form the syntax trees.

19. The method of claim 18 wherein said creating further comprises normalizing the syntax trees.

20. The method of claim 19 wherein during said normalizing, the syntax trees are normalized into canonical form where common operators are simplified to a single n-ary operator.

21. The method of claim 18 wherein the tree-shaped hierarchies of operators and operands are generally based on orders of operation.

22. The method of claim 21 wherein operations to be performed first are placed at the bottom of the syntax trees and operations to be performed last are placed at the top of the syntax trees.

23. The method of claim 1 further comprising, prior to said comparing, determining if the response syntax tree is valid and when said response syntax tree is not valid, bypassing said comparing and grading said response as incorrect.

24. The method of claim 1 further comprising, prior to said creating, receiving the equation-based response from one or more response devices.

25. A computerized assessment grading method comprising:

upon receipt of an equation-based response to an assessment question, creating a hierarchy of operators and operands based on the response;

comparing the response hierarchy of operators and operands with a solution hierarchy of operators and operands; and

grading the response based on the comparison.

26. The method of claim 25, wherein the grading method is carried out according to a selected grading methodology.

27. The method of claim 26 wherein the selected grading methodology is selected from a plurality of different grading methodologies.

28. The method of claim 27, wherein the plurality of different grading methodologies at least comprise an Order Equivalence grading methodology, a Content Equivalence grading methodology, and a Formal Equivalence grading methodology.

29. The method of claim 25 wherein the response and solution hierarchies of operators and operands are generally based on orders of operation.

30. The method of claim 25 wherein said comparing comprises determining if the hierarchies of operators and operands match.

31. The method of claim 30 wherein said comparing further comprises, when the hierarchies of operators and operands match, determining the existence of operator order equivalence.

32. The method of claim 30 wherein said comparing further comprises, when the hierarchies of operators and operands do not match, determining if the response and the solution comprise the same solution sets.

33. The method of claim 25 further comprising, prior to said comparing, determining if the response hierarchy of operators and operands is valid and when said response hierarchy of operators and operands is not valid, bypassing said comparing and grading said response as incorrect.

34. The method of claim 25 further comprising, prior to said creating, receiving the equation-based response from one or more response devices.

38. A participant response system comprising:

at least one response device, each response device having an input interface permitting a user to input an equation-based response to a question; and

processing structure communicating with each response device, said processing structure, in response to a received equation-based response, carrying out the method according to claim 25.

35. A participant response system comprising:

at least one response device, each response device having an input interface permitting a user to input an equation-based response to a question; and

processing structure communicating with each response device, said processing structure, in response to a received response, executing a grading method that causes said processing structure to create a syntax tree for the received response, compare the response syntax tree with a solution syntax tree and grade the response based on the results of the comparison.

36. The participant response system of claim 35, wherein the grading method is carried out according to a selected grading methodology.

37. The participant response system of claim 36, wherein the selected grading methodology is at least one of Order Equivalence, Content Equivalence, and Formal Equivalence grading methodology.

39. An apparatus comprising:

a processing device; and

memory storing computer program code, the processing device communicating with the memory and executing the computer program code causing the apparatus to, in response to a received equation-based response to an assessment question, create a syntax tree for the received response, compare the response syntax tree with a solution syntax tree and grade the response based on the results of the comparison.

40. A non-transitory computer readable medium embodying computer program code, which when executed causes a processing device to in response to a received equation-based response to an assessment question, create a syntax tree for the received response, compare the response syntax tree with a solution syntax tree and grade the response based on the results of the comparison.