This study explores the efficacy of a multi-perspective hybrid neural network (HNN) for scoring student responses in science education with an analytic rubric. We compared the accuracy of the HNN model with four ML approaches (BERT, AACR, Naive Bayes, and Logistic Regression). The results have shown that HHN achieved 8%, 3%, 1%, and 0.12% higher accuracy than Naive Bayes, Logistic Regression, AACR, and BERT, respectively, for five scoring aspects (p<0.001). The overall HNN's perceived accuracy (M = 96.23%, SD = 1.45%) is comparable to the (training and inference) expensive BERT model's accuracy (M = 96.12%, SD = 1.52%). We also have observed that HNN is x2 more efficient in training and inferencing than BERT and has comparable efficiency to the lightweight but less accurate Naive Bayes model. Our study confirmed the accuracy and efficiency of using HNN to score students' science writing automatically.
View on arXiv