Date
Publisher
arXiv
In recent years, natural language processing (NLP) has become integral to
educational data mining, particularly in the analysis of student-generated
language products. For research and assessment purposes, so-called embedding
models are typically employed to generate numeric representations of text that
capture its semantic content for use in subsequent quantitative analyses. Yet
when it comes to science-related language, symbolic expressions such as
equations and formulas introduce challenges that current embedding models
struggle to address. Existing research studies and practical applications often
either overlook these challenges or remove symbolic expressions altogether,
potentially leading to biased research findings and diminished performance of
practical applications. This study therefore explores how contemporary
embedding models differ in their capability to process and interpret
science-related symbolic expressions. To this end, various embedding models are
evaluated using physics-specific symbolic expressions drawn from authentic
student responses, with performance assessed via two approaches: 1)
similarity-based analyses and 2) integration into a machine learning pipeline.
Our findings reveal significant differences in model performance, with OpenAI's
GPT-text-embedding-3-large outperforming all other examined models, though its
advantage over other models was moderate rather than decisive. Overall, this
study underscores the importance for educational data mining researchers and
practitioners of carefully selecting NLP embedding models when working with
science-related language products that include symbolic expressions. The code
and (partial) data are available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6XQVG.
Study at a glance
- Question: How accurately do different text embedding models process physics formulas and symbols found in student responses?
- Setting and data: Physics responses from German students, including 100 extracted symbolic expressions and 3,322 concept-mapping statements.
- Method: Model evaluation using cosine similarity matching against text descriptions and classification via support vector machine pipeline.
Why it matters
Science language relies heavily on formulas and equations. Omitting or failing to process symbolic expressions in student writing may lead to biased research findings and inaccurate automated evaluations.
Key findings
- OpenAI's GPT-text-embedding-3-large outperformed other tested models, distinguishing correct from incorrect literal translations in 91% of comparisons and related concepts in 83%.
- Classifying student responses with a support vector machine yielded lower average agreement for responses containing symbolic expressions than for purely textual responses.
- Open-source models, including G-SciEdBERT which was fine-tuned for German science education tasks, struggled to distinguish physics formulas from incorrect concepts.
Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design
