請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/5265
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 孫雅麗(Yeali S. Sun) | |
dc.contributor.author | Yi-Ting Huang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黃意婷 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-15T17:54:40Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-08-03 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-15T17:54:40Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2015-08-03 | |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2015-08-03 | |
dc.identifier.citation | [1] Agarwal, M. & Mannem, P. (2011). Automatic gap–fill question generation from text books. Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, 56–64.
[2] Agarwal, M., Shah, R., & Mannem, P. (2011). Automatic question generation using discourse cues. Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, 1–9. [3] Alario, F. X., Ferrand, L., Laganaro, M., New, B., Frauenfelder, U. H. & Segui, J. (2005). Predictors of picture naming speed. Behavior Research Methods, In-struments, & Computers, 36, 140-155. [4] Anderson, R. C., & Biddle, W. B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. Psychology of learning and motivation, 9, 89-132. [5] Baeza-Yates, R. & Ribeiro-Neto, B. (1999). Modern Information Retrieval. New York: ACM Press. [6] Baker, F. B. (1993). Equating tests under the nominal response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 239-251. [7] Bates, E. (2003). On the nature and nurture of language. Retrieved November 24, 2011, from http://crl.ucsd.edu/bates/papers/pdf/bates-inpress.pdf [8] Barla, M., Bielikova, M., Ezzeddinne, A. B., Kramar, T., Simko, M. & Vozar, O. (2010). On the impact of adaptive test question selection for learning efficiency. Computer & Education, 55(2), 846–857. [9] Barzilay, R. and Lapata, M. (2008). Modeling local coherence: An entity-based approach. Computational Linguistics, 34(1), 1-34. [10] Brown, R. G. (2004). Smoothing, forecasting and prediction of discrete time series. New York: Dover Publications. [11] Brown, J., Frishkoff, G. & Eskenazi, M. (2005). Automatic question generation for vocabulary assessment. Proceedings of Proceedings of the conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 819-826. [12] Bock, R. D., & Mislevy, R. J. (1982). Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 431-444. [13] Barzilay, R. and Lapata, M. (2008). Modeling local coherence: An enti-ty-based approach. Computational Linguistics, 34(1), 1-34. [14] Brown, R. G. (2004). Smoothing, forecasting and prediction of discrete time series. Dover Publications. [15] Brysbaert, M., Wijnendaele, I. V., & Deyne, S. D. (2000). Age-of-acquisition effects in semantic processing tasks. Acta Psychologica, 104(2), 215-226. [16] Carrolla, J. B. & Whitea, M. N. (1973). Word frequency and age of acquisi-tion as determiners of picture-naming latency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25(1), 85-95. [17] Chali, Y. & Hasan, S. A. (2012). Towards Automatic Topical Question Generation. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 475–492. [18] Chen, C. M., Lee, H. M., & Chen, Y. H. (2005). Personalized e–learning system using item response theory. Computers & Education, 44(3), 237–255. [19] Chen, C. M., & Chung, C. J. (2008). Personalized mobile English vocabulary learning system based on item response theory and learning memory cycle. Computers & Education, 51(2), 624–645. [20] Chen, C. Y., Ko, M. H., Wu, T. W. & Chang, J. S. (2005). FAST:Free Assistant of Structural Tests. Proceedings of the Computational Linguistics and Speech Processing (ROCLING 2005). [21] Chen, W., & Mostow, J. (2011). A Tale of Two Tasks: Detecting Children’s Off-Task Speech in a Reading Tutor. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, 1621-124. [22] Chen, W., Aist, G., & Mostow, J. (2009). Generating Questions Automatically from Informational Text. Proceedings of AIED 2009 Workshop on Question Generation, 17-24. [23] Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test the-ory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. [24] Coleman, M. and Liau, T. L. (1975). A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2):283–284. [25] Collins-Thompson, K. and Callan, J. (2004). A Language Modeling Approach to Predicting Reading Difficulty. Proceedings of the Human Language Tech-nology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Com-putational Linguistics (HLT-NAACL2004) [26] Collins-Thompson, K., Bennett, P. N., White, R. W., Chica, S. Sontag, D. (2011). Personalizing Web Search Results by Reading Level. Proceedings of CIKM2011 [27] Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (2005). Minimal Recursion Semantics: An Introduction, Research on Language and Computation, 3, 281-332. [28] Dale, E. and Chall, J. S. (1948). A Formula for Predicting Readability. Educa-tional Research Bulletin, 27(1). [29] David, H. A. & Nagaraja, H. N. (2003), Order statistics. Marblehead, MA: Wiley. [30] Davies, R., Barbón, A., & Cuetos, F. (2013). Lexical and semantic age-of-acquisition effects on word naming in Spanish. Memory & Cognition, 41(2), 297-311. [31] EL-Manzalawy, Y. and Honavar, V. (2005). {WLSVM}: Integrating LibSVM into Weka Environment. Retrieved November 24, 2011, from http://www.cs.iastate.edu/~yasser/wlsvm/ [32] Elo, A. (1978). The rating of chessplayers, past and present. New York: Arco Publishers. [33] Embertson, S., & Resise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum. [34] Fehr, C. N., Davison, M. L., Graves, M. F., Sales, G. C., Seipel, B., & Sekhran–Sharma, S. (2012). The effects of individualized, online vocabulary instruction on picture vocabulary scores: an efficacy study, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1), 87–102. [35] Feng, L., Jansche, M., Huenerfauth, M., and Elhadad, N. (2010). A Compari-son of Features for Automatic Readability Assessment. Proceedings of Interna-tional Conference on Computational Linguistics , 276-284. [36] Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of applied psychology, 32(3), 221-233. [37] Gronlund, N. (1993). How to make achievement tests and assessments. New York: Allyn and Bacon. [38] Gunning, R. (1952). The technique of clear writing. McGraw-Hill, 1952. [39] Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: princi-ples and applications. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff. [40] Heilman, M., Collins-Thompson, K., Callan, J., and Eskenazi, M. (2007). Combining Lexical and Grammatical Features to Improve Readability Measures for First and Second Language Texts. Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference, 460-467. [41] Heilman, M., Collins-Thompson, K. and Eskenazi, M. (2008). An Analysis of Statistical Models and Features for Reading Difficulty Prediction. Proceedings of the Third ACL Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, 71–79. [42] Heilman, M. & Smith, N. A. (2009). Question generation via overgenerating transformations and ranking. Technical report, Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University Technical Report CMU–LTI–09–013, Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~nasmith/papers/heilman+smith.tr09.pdf. [43] Heilman, M. & Smith, N. A. (2010). Good question! statistical ranking for question generation. Proceedings of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 609–617. [44] Hsiao, H. S., Chang, C. S., Chen, C. J., Wu, C. H. & Lin, C. Y. (2013). The influence of Chinese character handwriting diagnosis and remedial instruction system on learners of Chinese as a foreign language, Computer Assisted Language Learning, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2013.818562. [45] Ho, H. and Huong, C. (2011). A Multiple Aspects Quantitative Indicator for Ability of English Vocabulary: Vocabulary Quotient. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 4(1), 15-26. [46] Huang, S. X. (1996) A content-balanced adaptive testing algorithm for com-puter-based training systems. Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 306–314. [47] Izura, C., & Ellis, A. W. (2002). Age of acquisition effects in word recogni-tion and production in first and second languages. Psicologica, 23, 245-281. [48] Johns, T. F., Hsingchin, L., & Lixun, W. (2008). Integrating corpus–based CALL programs in teaching English through children's literature, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(5), 483–506. [49] Kate, R. J., Luo, X., Patwardhan, S., Franz, M., Florian, R., Mooney, R. J., Roukos, S., Welty, C. (2010). Learning to Predict Readability using Diverse Lingustic Features. Proceedings of the 23rd Internation Conference on Computa-tional Lingustics, pages 546-554. [50] Kidwell, P., Lebanon, G., and Collins-Thompson, K. (2009). Statistical esti-mation of word acquisition with application to readability prediction. Proceed-ings of Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 900-909. [51] Kidwell, P., Lebanon, G., & Collins-Thompson, K. (2011). Statistical Estima-tion of Word Acquisition With Application to Readability Prediction. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(493), 21-30. [52] Kincaid, J. Peter; Fishburne, Lieutenant Robert P., Jr.; Rogers, Richard L.; Chissom, Brad S. (1975). Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy En-listed Personnel. Branch Report. Virginia: National Technical Information Ser-vice. [53] Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [54] Kireyev, K. & Landauer, T. K. (2011). Word maturity: computational model-ing of word knowledge. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Associa-tion for Computational Linguistics, 299–308. [55] Klein, D. and Manning, C. D. (2003). Accurate Unlexicalized Parsing. Pro-ceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, . 423-430. [56] Klinkenberg, S., Straatemeier, M., & van der Maas, H.L.J. (2011). Computer adaptive practice of Maths ability using a new item response model for on the fly ability and difficulty estimation. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1813-1824. [57] Kuo, C. H., Wible, D., Chen, M. C., Sung, L. C., Tsao, N. L. & Chio, C. L. (2002). Design and implementation of an intelligent Web–based interactive language learning system. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(3), 785–788. [58] Lin, Y. C., Sung, L. C. & Chen, M. C. (2007). An automatic multiple-choice question generation scheme for English adjective understanding. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computers in Education, 137-142. [59] Lee, J. & Seneff, S. (2007). Automatic generation of cloze items for prepositions. Proceeding of INTERSPEECH 2007, 2173–2176 [60] Lee, Y. J. (2012). Developing an efficient computational method that esti-mates the ability of students in a Web-based learning environment. Computer and Education, 58(1), 579-589. [61] Levy, R. & Andrew G. (2006). Tregex and Tsurgeon: tools for querying and manipulating tree data structures. Proceeding of 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. [62] Lin, Y. C., Sung, L. C. & Chen, M. C. (2007). An automatic multiple–choice question generation scheme for English adjective understanding. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computers in Education, 137–142. [63] Liu, C. L., Wang, C. H., Gao, Z. M., & Huang, S. M. (2005). Applications of lexical information for algorithmically composing multiple–choice cloze items. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Building Educational Applications Using Natural Language Processing, 1–8. [64] Liu, M., Calvo, R. A., Aditomo, A., & Pizzato, L. A. (2012). Using Wikipedia and conceptual graph structures to generate questions for academic writing support. IEEE Transactions on learning technologies, 5(3), 251-263. [65] Long, P. and Siemens, G. (2011). Penetrating the Fog: Analytics in Learning and Education. Educause Review, 46(5), 31-40. [66] Lou, B and Guy, A. (1998). The BNC handbook: exploring the British Nation-al Corpus. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [67] Manning, C. D. & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural lan-guage processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [68] Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P. D., & Schütze, H. (2008). Introduction to in-formation retrieval. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [69] Mannem, P., Prasad, R., & Joshi, A. (2010). Question generation from paragraphs at UPenn: QGSTEC system description, Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Question Generation. [70] McDonald, J. L. (2000). Grammaticality judgments in a second language: In-fluences of age of acquisition and native language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(3), 395-423. [71] McLaughlin, G. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646. [72] Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. J. (1990). WordNet: An on–line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3(4), 235–244. [73] Mitkov, R. & Ha, L. A. (2003). Computer–aided generation of multiple–choice tests. Proceeding of the Workshop on Building Educational Applications Using Natural Language Processing, 17–22. [74] Mitkov, R., Ha, L. A., & Karamanis, N. (2006). A computer-aided environment for generating multiple-choice test items. Natural Language Engineering, 12(2), 177-194. [75] Mostow, J. & Chen, W. (2009). Generating instruction automatically for the reading strategy of selfquestioning. Proceeding of Articial Intelligence in Education, 465-472. [76] Mostow, J. & Jang, H. (2012). Generating diagnostic multiple choice comprehension cloze questions. Proceeding of the 7th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, 136–146. [77] Morrison, C. M., Ellis, A. W. & Quinlan, M. (1992). Age of acquisition, not word frequency, affects object naming, not object recognition. Memory & Cog-nition, 20(6), 705-714. [78] Nation, K. & Angell, P. (2006). Learning to read and learning to comprehend. London Review of Education, 4(1), 77-87. [79] Prasad, R., & Joshi, A. (2008). A Discourse-based Approach to Generating Why-Questions from Texts. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Question Generation Shared Task and Evaluation Challenge. [80] Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Joshi, A. K., & Webber, B. L. (2008). The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In Proceedings of LREC. [81] Pasca, M. (2011). Asing what no one has asked before: using phrase similarities to generrate synthetic web search queries. Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management (CIKM '11), 1347-1352. [82] Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. Precursors of functional literacy, 11, 67-86. [83] Pino, J., Heilman, M., & Eskenazi, M. (2008). A Selection Strategy to Im-prove Cloze Question Quality, Proceedings of ITS Workshop on Intelligent Tu-toring Systems for Ill-Defined Domains, 22-32. [84] Pitler, E. and Nenkova, A. (2008). Revisiting Readability: A Unified Frame-work for Predicting Text Quality. Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing,186-195. [85] Piwek, P., Prendinger, H., Hernault, H., & Ishizuka, M. (2008). Generating Questions: An Inclusive Characterization and a Dialogue-based Application. In Proceedings of Workshop on the Question Generation Shared Task and Evalua-tion Challenge, 25-26. [86] Raghunathan, K., Lee, H., Rangarajan, S., Chambers, N., Surdeanu, M., Jurafsky, D. & Manning, C. (2010). A multi–pass sieve for coreference resolution. Procceding of the Empirical Methods on Natural Language Processing, 492–501. [87] Rus, V., Wyse, B., Piwek, P., Lintean, M., Stoyanchev, S., & Moldovan, C. (2010). The First Question Generation Shared Task Evaluation Challenge. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Natural Language Generation Conference. [88] Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6 (2), 461–464. [89] Schwarm, S. and Ostendorf, M. (2005). Reading Level Assessment Using Support Vector Machines and Statistical Language Models. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 523-530. [90] Stenner, A. J. (1996). Measuring Reading Comprehension with the Lexile Framework. Fourth North American Conference on Adolescent/Adult Literacy. [91] Sumita, E., Sugaya, F., & Yamamoto, S. (2005). Measuring Non-native Speakers Proficiency of English by Using a Test with Automatically-Generated Fill-in-the-Blank Questions, Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Building Ed-ucational Applications using NLP, 61-68. [92] Smith, S., Avinesh, P.V.S. & Kilgarriff, A. (2010). Gap-fill Tests for Lan-guage Learners: Corpus-Driven Item Generation. Proceedings of the 8th Inter-national Conference on Natural Language Processing. [93] Tanaka-Ishii, K., Tezuka, S., Terada, T. (2010). Sorting Texts by Readability. Computational Linguistics, 36(2), 203-227. [94] Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 58(1), 267-288. [95] Troubleyn, K., Heireman, K. & Walle, A. N. (1996). ATLAS: Computerised second language proficiency testing, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 9(4), 359–366. [96] Turney, P. D. (2001). Mining the Web for Synonyms: PMI-IR versus LSA on TOEFL. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Machine Learning, 491-502. [97] Turney, P. D., Littman, M. L., Bigham, J., & Shnayder, V. (2003). Combining Independent Modules to Solve Multiple-choice Synonym and Analogy Prob-lems. Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natu-ral Language Processing, 482-489. [98] Wainer H. & Mislevy R.J. (1990). Computerized adaptive testing: a primer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [99] Wan, X., Li, H., & Xiao, J. (2010). EUSUM: Extracting Easy-to-Understand English Summaries for Non-Native Readers. Proceedings of the 33th Annual In-ternational ACM SIGIR Conference, 491-498. [100] Weiss, D. J., & Kingsbury, G. G. (1984). Application of computerized adap-tive testing to educational problems. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 361–375. [101] Wilson, K., Boyd, C., Chen, L. & Jamal, S. (2010). Improving student per-formance in a first–year geography course: Examining the importance of com-puter–assisted formative assessment. Computers & Education, 57 (2), 1493–1500. [102] Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring and problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. [103] Wu, C. H., Su, H. Y., & Liu, C. H. (2012). Efficient personalized mispronunciation detection of Taiwanese–accented English speech based on unsupervised model adaptation and dynamic sentence selection, Computer Assisted Language Learning, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2012.687383. [104] Wu, R. Y. F., and Liao, C. H. Y. (2010). Establishing a Common Score Scale for the GEPT Elementary, Intermediate, and High-Intermediate Level Listening and Reading Tests. Proceedings of International Conference on English Lan-guage Teaching and Testing. Taipei: Language Training and Testing Center. [105] Urooj, U., Cornelissen, P. L., Simpson, M. I., Wheat, K. L., Woods, W., Bar-ca, L. & Ellis, A. W. (2013). Interactions between visual and semantic processing during object recognition revealed by modulatory effects of age of acquisition. NeuroImage. [106] Van der Linden, W. J., & Glas, C. A. W. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice. Boston, MA: Kluwer. [107] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psycho-logical process. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. [108] Yamada, J. (2004). An L1-script-transfer-effect fallacy: a rejoinder to Wang et al. (2003). Cognition, 93, 127-132. [109] Yang, Y. C., Yang, C. F, Chang, C. M. & Chang, J. S. (2005). Computered–aid reading comprehension automatic quiz generation. Proceedings of the Computational Linguistics and Speech Processing. [110] Yao, X., Bouma, G., & Zhang, Y. (2012). Semantics-based Question Genera-tion and Implementation. Dialogue and Discourse, 3(2), 11-42. [111] Zhang, D., Jiang, Q. and Li, X. (2005). Application of Neural Networks in Financial Data Mining. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 1, 136–139. [112] Zevin, J. D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002). Age of acquisition effects in word reading and other tasks. Journal of Memory and Language, 47 (1), 1–29. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/5265 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 過去幾年來,電腦輔助自動出題(Computer-aided Question Generation)研究在結合自然語言處理(Natural Language Processing) 的技術和計算語言學(Computational Linguistics)的方法,受到電腦輔助語言學習(Computer-assisted Language Learning)領域中越來越多的關注。為了提供以英文為第二外語的學習者自我學習評量,本研究提出個人化方法,以判斷學習教材難易度及評估學生程度的機制,應用於電腦輔助自動出題。在判斷閱讀難易度(Reading Difficulty Esti-mation)部分,根據學生的學習教材,考量豐富的語言特徵以及學生語言習得年級分布(language acquisition grade distributions),針對第二語言學習特性,提出適合第二語言學習者閱讀難易度分析;在評估學生程度 (Ability Estimation)的部分,結合 (Item Response Theory)和年級分布,考量受試者長期的測驗結果來估計學生實際程度。在自動出題的部分,考量單字、文法與閱讀能力有交互作用影響,提出不同難度的單字、文法與閱讀測驗出題方法,利用評估學生程度機制獲得學生的能力估計,抽取與學生程度相符的閱讀素材和考題進行測驗,考試的結果也作為下一次個人化出題參考。實驗結果顯示閱讀難易度估計和能力程度評估可以比過去相關研究還要準確;此外,透過個人化電腦輔助出題系統的協助下,學習者可以減少重複犯錯,並且有明顯的進步。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | In recent years, there has been increasing attention to computer-aided question generation in the field of computer assisted language learning and Natural Language Processing (NLP). However, the previous related work often provides examinees with an exhaustive amount of questions that are not designed for any specific testing pur-pose. In this study, we present a personalized automatic quiz generation that generates multiple–choice questions at various difficulty levels and categories, including grammar, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. We also design a reading difficulty estimation to predict the readability of a reading material, for learners taking English as a foreign language. The proposed reading difficulty estimation is based not only on the complex-ity of lexical and syntactic features, but also on several novel concepts, including the word and grammar acquisition grade distributions from several sources, word sense from WordNet, and the implicit relations between sentences. Moreover, we combine the proposed question generation with a quiz strategy for estimating a student’s ability and question selection. We develop a statistical and interpretable ability estimation. This method captures the succession of learning over time and provides an explainable interpretation of a statistical measurement, based on the quantiles of acquisition distri-butions and Item Response Theory (IRT). The concepts behind incorrectly answered questions are reincorporated into future tests in order to improve the weaknesses of examinees. The results showed that proposed second language reading difficulty esti-mation outperforms other first language reading difficulty estimations and the pro-posed ability estimation showed more accurate and robust than other ability estimations. In an empirical study, the results showed that the subjects with the personalized auto-matic quiz generation corrected their mistakes more frequently than ones only with computer–aided question generation. Moreover, subjects demonstrated the most pro-gress between the pre–test and post–test and correctly answered more difficult ques-tions. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-15T17:54:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-103-D97725008-1.pdf: 1140717 bytes, checksum: 085036141638927af049c689a94b5e64 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Table of Contents
口試委員會審訂書 i 致謝 ii 論文摘要 iii THESIS ABSTRACT iv Table of Contents vii List of Tables... ix List of Figures x Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Research problem 4 1.3 Research purpose 5 Chapter 2 Related Work 12 2.1 Question generation 12 2.1.1 Computer-aided question generation for language learning 12 2.1.2 Question generation in natural language processing 16 2.1.3 The importance of the generated questions 19 2.2 Personalization 21 2.2.1 Reading difficulty estimation 21 2.2.2 Ability estimation 25 Chapter 3 Computer-aided Question Generation 29 3.1 Vocabulary question generation 34 3.2 Grammar question generation 37 3.3 Comprehension question generation 41 Chapter 4 Personalization 47 4.1 Reading difficulty estimation 47 5.1.1 Baseline features 49 5.1.2 The word acquisition grade distributions features 51 5.1.3 Frequency features 53 5.1.4 Parse features 55 5.1.5 The grammar acquisition grade distributions features 59 5.1.6 Semantic features 60 5.1.7 Relation features 61 5.1.8 Regression model 63 5.2 Ability estimation 65 5.3 Quiz Selection 69 Chapter 5 Evaluation on reading difficulty estimation 72 5.1 Data set 72 5.2 Metrics 73 5.3 Evaluation of the features 75 5.4 Optimal model selection 80 6.5 Reading difficulty estimation as classification 89 Chapter 6 Simulation on ability estimation 94 6.1 Setting 94 6.2 The characteristics of the proposed ability estimation 97 6.3 The comparison with other ability estimations 103 Chapter 7 An empirical Study 107 7.1 System and materials 107 7.2 Participants and procedure 110 7.3 The performance of the proposed ability estimation with the empirical data 112 7.4 Student performance 118 7.5 Unclear concept enhancement 124 7.6 User satisfaction 125 Chapter 8 Discussion and Conclusion 130 8.1 Summary 130 8.2. Contribution 133 8.3 Limitations 138 8.4 Future applications 140 References 142 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 個人化電腦輔助出題於英文學習之研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Personalized Computer-aided Question Generation for English Language Learning | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 103-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳孟彰(Meng Chang Chen),魏友賢(David Wible),陳信希(Hsin-Hsi Chen),楊接期(Jie-Chi Yang),陳建錦(Chien Chin Chen) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 電腦輔助自動出題,閱讀難易度評估,學生能力程度估計,項目反應理論,電腦輔助語言學習, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Computer-aided question generation,reading difficulty estimation,ability estimation,Item Response Theory,Computer assisted language learning, | en |
dc.relation.page | 161 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2015-08-03 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 資訊管理學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 資訊管理學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-103-1.pdf | 1.11 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。