Search and Filter

Repository Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the repository's content relevance and usability. Please share your thoughts to help us better serve researchers and practitioners.

Submit feedback

Submit a research study

Contribute to the repository:

Add a paper

Evaluating Nlp Embedding Models For Handling Science-Specific Symbolic Expressions In Student Texts

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?