3 ms·
> even basic fluency monitoring without any active remediation attempts would be a good addition. How do you define fluency? I guess it involves some combinati
by yorwba 7y ago
> even basic fluency monitoring without any active remediation attempts would be a good addition.
How do you define fluency? I guess it involves some combination of speed and accuracy. Speed shouldn't be too hard to measure, but for accuracy you'll probably need a model that's more accurate than 7.5% WER and can handle the difference in vocal range between children and adults. Otherwise the speech disfluencies you want to detect will be drowned out by the model not correctly recognizing actually pretty clear speech.
- jcims 7y agoIn the US, fluency metrics in ELA vary across standards/states but are generally coarse grained and somewhat subjective. Here's an example of the standard that a student is expected to meet for fluency in the fifth grade (bottom half): http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/5/ http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/5/ You definitely would have to use a model trained from content in the target audience (probably down to the grade level as things change so dramatically from year to year) as well as probably some labeled examples of students with various reading/speech deficiencies. This of course would lead to a lot of challenges from a privacy/regulatory/etc perspective and the entire thing would be challenging from an optics perspective (AI teachers taking over, etc etc). Edit: One thing to keep in mind with accuracy is that there is no ambiguity what the word should be, the question is how closely the utterance matches the expected sounds of the word.