Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative evaluation reveals stable automated scoring of scientific inquiry via Random Forest over BERTurk in pre-service teachers, highlighting the necessity of model stability in educational AI.
Background Effective assessment of the nature of scientific inquiry is foundational to scientific literacy but is constrained by the resource-intensive, manual scoring of open-ended instruments such as the Views About Scientific Inquiry.Purpose We addressed this challenge by developing and validating a comparative machine learning framework to automate and standardise the evaluation of Views About Scientific Inquiry responses responses from 503 Turkish pre-service teachers.Design/Methodology We employed a feature-based Random Forest regression model and a deep contextual transformer-based BERTurk classification model using 5-fold cross-validation.Results The Random Forest model established a reliable and stable methodological baseline, demonstrating strong predictive alignment with expert scores and minimal variability across repeated validation runs. Conversely, the BERTurk model, despite showing high initial potential, experienced a severe, non-reproducible collapse in performance during systematic stability tests.Conclusions This outcome highlighted significant operational fragility under conditions constrained by limited data and a morphologically complex language. This comparative analysis reveals a critical methodological tension in educational artificial intelligence: model stability and interpretability must take precedence over peak performance for responsible application. The Random Forest framework offers a transparent, scalable solution for the automated, highly consistent assessment of the nature of scientific inquiry and serves as a diagnostic tool for identifying specific linguistic and conceptual difficulties in scientific reasoning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mesci et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: