The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computationally Modeling the Impact of Task-Appropriate Language Complexity and Accuracy on Human Grading of German Essays
Open accessAbstract
Computational linguistic research on the language complexity of student writing typically involves human ratings as a gold standard. However, educational science shows that teachers find it difficult to identify and cleanly separate accuracy, different aspects of complexity, contents, and structure. In this paper, we therefore explore the use of computational linguistic methods to investigate how task-appropriate complexity and accuracy relate to the grading of overall performance, content performance, and language performance as assigned by teachers. Based on texts written by students for the official school-leaving state examination (Abitur), we show that teachers successfully assign higher language performance grades to essays with higher task-appropriate language complexity and properly separate this from content scores. Yet, accuracy impacts teacher assessment for all grading rubrics, also the content score, overemphasizing the role of accuracy. Our analysis is based on broad computational linguistic modeling of German language complexity and an innovative theory- and data-driven feature aggregation method inferring task-appropriate language complexity.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“We identify vocabulary richness by using a well-established measure of textual, lexical diversity (MTLD)46 which is often used in the field of automated essay grading25,45,47. It takes into account the number of unique words but unlike the best-known measure of lexical diversity, the type-token ratio (TTR), it is not as sensitive to the difference in the length of the texts.”
From A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays (2023) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“Weiss et al.25 observe the correlation between measures of lexical, syntactic and discourse complexities to the essay gradings of German high-school examinations while McNamara et al.45 explore cohesion (indicated, among other things, by connectives), syntactic complexity and lexical diversity in relation to the essay scoring.”
From A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays (2023) · cites this paper as [25]
Citations
Cites
Task-based Language Learning and Teaching
Ellis, R. (2003) · Asian Journal of English Language Teaching · doi:10.65961/ajelt-2003-1-009 · Cited by 3,601
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays
Herbold, S., Hautli-Janisz, A., Heuer, U., Kikteva, Z., & Trautsch, A. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-45644-9 · Cited by 338
“We identify vocabulary richness by using a well-established measure of textual, lexical diversity (MTLD) 46 which is often used in the field of automated essay grading 25,45,47 .”
InfluentialWeiß, Z., & Meurers, W. D. (2019) · BEA@ACL · doi:10.18653/v1/w19-4440 · Cited by 27
Using Broad Linguistic Complexity Modeling for Cross-Lingual Readability Assessment
Weiß, Z., Chen, X., & Meurers, D. (2021) · NLP4CALL · doi:10.17605/osf.io/5hbcs · Cited by 23
“…the tasks of readability assessment (Chen and Meurers, 2018; Weiss and Meurers, 2018; K¨uhberger et al., 2019), second language proficiency assessment (Weiss and Meurers, 2019b, 2021), academic language profi-ciency (Weiss and Meurers, 2019a), and teachers’ grading objectivity (Weiss et al., 2019).”
BackgroundSelf-citationWeiß, Z., & Meurers, W. D. (2022) · Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.bea-1.19 · Cited by 23
“…robust in a variety of education-related tasks including readability assessment (Weiss and Meurers, 2018; Weiss et al., 2021; Kühberger et al., 2019) and work linked to writing quality assessment (Weiss and Meurers, 2019a,b; Weiss et al., 2019; Bertram et al., 2021; Riemenschneider et al., 2021).”
BackgroundLinguistic complexity in teachers' assessment of German essays in high stakes testing
Riemenschneider, A., Weiß, Z., Schröter, P., & Meurers, D. (2021) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2021.100561 · Cited by 22
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Weiss, Z., Riemenschneider, A., Schröter, P., & Meurers, D.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications
- Published
- 2019
- Pages
- 30-45
- OpenAlex
- W2970206146
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.77
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Text Readability and Simplification
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Keywords
- linguistic accuracy, essay scoring, teacher assessment, Abitur, language performance, feature aggregation, writing quality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review