Pretrained Language Models (PLMs), though popular, have been diagnosed to encode bias against protected groups in the representations they learn, which may harm the prediction fairness of downstream models. Given that such bias is believed to be related to the amount of demographic information carried in the learned representations, this study aimed to quantify the awareness that a PLM (i.e., BERT) has regarding people’s protected attributes and augment BERT to improve prediction fairness of downstream models by inhibiting this awareness. Specifically, we developed a method to dynamically sample data to continue the pretraining of BERT and enable it to generate representations carrying minimal demographic information, which can be directly used as input to downstream models for fairer predictions. By experimenting on the task of classifying educational forum posts and measuring fairness between students of different gender or first-language backgrounds, we showed that, compared to a baseline without any additional pretraining, our method improved not only fairness (with a maximum improvement of 52.33%) but also accuracy (with a maximum improvement of 2.53%). Our method can be generalized to any PLM and demographic attributes. All the codes used in this study can be accessed via https://github.com/lsha49/FairBERT_deploy.

Deep Learning (DL) techniques have been increasingly adopted for Automatic Text Scoring in education. However, these techniques often suffer from their inabilities to explain and justify how a prediction is made, which, unavoidably, decreases their trustworthiness and hinders educators from embracing them in practice. This study aimed to investigate whether (and to what extent) DL-based graders align with human graders regarding the important words they identify when marking short answer questions. To this end, we first conducted a user study to ask human graders to manually annotate important words in assessing answer quality and then measured the overlap between these human-annotated words and those identified by DL-based graders (i.e., those receiving large attention weights). Furthermore, we ran a randomized controlled experiment to explore the impact of highlighting important words detected by DL-based graders on human grading. The results showed that: (i) DL-based graders, to a certain degree, displayed alignment with human graders no matter whether DL-based graders and human graders agreed on the quality of an answer; and (ii) it is possible to facilitate human grading by highlighting those DL-detected important words, though further investigations are necessary to understand how human graders exploit such highlighted words.

The role of alignment between interlocutors in second language learning is different to that in fluent conversational dialogue. Learners gain linguistic skill through increased alignment, yet the extent to which they can align will be constrained by their ability. Tutors may use alignment to teach and encourage the student, yet still must push the student and correct their errors, decreasing alignment. To understand how learner ability interacts with alignment, we measure the influence of ability on lexical priming, an indicator of alignment. We find that lexical priming in learner-tutor dialogues differs from that in conversational and task-based dialogues, and we find evidence that alignment increases with ability and with word complexity.