ITS 2014: Intelligent Tutoring Systems pp 260-265 | Cite as
Can Diagrams Predict Essay Grades?
Abstract
Diagrammatic models of argument have grown in prominence in recent years. While they have been applied in a number of tutoring contexts, it has not yet been shown that student-produced diagrams can be used to effectively grade students or predict their future performance. We show that manually-assigned diagram grades and automatic structural features of argument diagrams can be used to predict students’ future essay grades, thus supporting the use of argument diagrams for instruction. We also show that the automatic features are competitive with expert human grading despite the fact that semantic content was ignored in automatic processing.
Keywords
Argument Diagrams Essay Grading Argumentation Educational Datamining Writing Automatic GradingPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Chryssafidou, E., Sharples, M.: Computer-supported planning of essay argument structure. In: Proc. of the 5th International Conference of Argumentation (2002)Google Scholar
- 2.Harrell, M., Wetzel, D.: Improving first-year writing using argument diagramming. In: Knauff, M., Sebanz, N., Pauen, M., Wachsmuth, I. (eds.) Proc. of the 35th Annual Conf. of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2488–2493Google Scholar
- 3.Loll, F., Pinkwart, N.: Lasad: Flexible representations for computer-based collaborative argumentation. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 71(1), 91–109 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Lynch, C.F.: The Diagnosticity of Argument Diagrams Univ. of Pittsburgh (2014)Google Scholar
- 5.Lynch, C.F., Ashley, K.D., Falakmassir, M.H.: Comparing argument diagrams. In: Schäfer, B. (ed.) JURIX 2012: The 25th Annual Conference, vol. 250, pp. 81–90. IOS Press, University of Amsterdam (2012)Google Scholar
- 6.Lynch, C.F., Ashley, K.D., Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V.: Argument graph classification with genetic programming and c4.5. In: de Baker, R.S.J., Barnes, T., Beck, J.E. (eds.) EDM, pp. 137–146 (2008), www.educationaldatamining.org
- 7.Pinkwart, N., Ashley, K.D., Lynch, C.F., Aleven, V.: Evaluating an intelligent tutoring system for making legal arguments with hypotheticals. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 19(4), 401–424 (2009)Google Scholar
- 8.Scheuer, O., Niebuhr, S., Dragon, T., McLaren, B.M., Pinkwart, N.: Adaptive support for graphical argumentation - the LASAD approach. IEEE Learning Technology Newsletter 14(1), 8–11 (2012)Google Scholar
- 9.Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., McLaren, B.: Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 5, 43–102 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Shum, S.J.B., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V.M.E., Hammond, N.V.: Graphical argumentation and design cognition. HCI 12(3), 267–300 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Suthers, D.D.: Empirical studies of the value of conceptually explicit notations in collaborative learning. In: Okada, A., Buckingham Shum, S., Sherborne, T. (eds.) Knowledge Cartography, pp. 1–23. Springer (2008)Google Scholar