Advertisement

Analysis of Key Features in Conclusions of Student Reports

  • Aurelio López-LópezEmail author
  • Samuel González-López
  • Jesús Miguel García-Gorrostieta
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)

Abstract

This work seeks to help students in improving their first research reports, based on natural language processing techniques. We present a Conclusion model that includes three schemes: Goal Connectedness, Judgment and Speculation. These subsystems try to account for the main expected features in conclusions, specifically the Connectedness with the general objective of the research, the evidence of value Judgments, and the presence of Future work as a result of the student reflection after the inquiry. The article details the schemes, a validation of the approach in an annotated corpus, and a pilot test with undergraduate students. Results of a prior validation indicate that student writings indeed adhere to such features, especially at graduate level. Statistical results of the pilot test showed that undergraduate students in an experimental group achieved improved conclusion content when compared with the control group.

Keywords

natural language processing automated text evaluation conclusion formulation goal connectedness reports assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1] Bitchener, J., Basturkmen, H.: Perceptions of the diculties of postgraduate l2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(1), 4–18 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. [2] Allen, G.R.: The graduate students’ guide to theses and dissertations: A practical manual for writing and research. (1973)Google Scholar
  3. [3] Davis, J., Liss, R.: Efective academic writing 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2006)Google Scholar
  4. [4] Lab, P.O.W.: Introductions, body paragraphs, and conclusions for an argument paper. Website, https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/724/04/, consulted January 30, 2016
  5. [5] Debuse, J.C., Lawley, M., Shibl, R.: Educators’ perceptions of automated feedback systems. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 24(4) (2008)Google Scholar
  6. [6] Gierl, M.J., Lati, S., Lai, H., Boulais, A.P., De Champlain, A.: Automated essay scoring and the future of educational assessment in medical education. Medical education 48(10), 950–962 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. [7] Crossley, S.A., Varner, L.K., Roscoe, R.D., McNamara, D.S.: Using automated indices of cohesion to evaluate an intelligent tutoring system and an automated writing evaluation system. In: Intl Conf. on Artificial Intelligence in Education. pp. 269–278. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  8. [8] McNamara, D.S., Crossley, S.A., McCarthy, P.M.: Linguistic features of writing quality. Written communication 27(1), 57–86 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. [9] Crossley, S.A., Muldner, K., McNamara, D.S.: Idea generation in student writing: Computational assessments and links to successful writing. Written Communication 33(3), 328–354 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. [10] González-López, S., López-López, A.: Lexical analysis of student research drafts in computing. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 23(4), 638–644 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. [11] Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G.: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometric 32(1), 159–174 (1977)Google Scholar
  12. [12] Aiken, M., Ghosh, K.,Wee, J., Vanjani, M.: An evaluation of the accuracy of online translation systems. Communications of the IIMA 9(4), 67–84 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. [13] Kilicoglu, H., Bergler, S.: Recognizing speculative language in biomedical research articles: a linguistically motivated perspective. BMC Bioinformatics 9(11), S10 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. [14] Vincze, V., Szarvas, G., Farkas, R., Mora, G., Csirik, J.: The bioscope corpus:biomedical texts annotated for uncertainty, negation and their scopes. BMC Bioinformatics 9(11), (2008)Google Scholar
  15. [15] Tobing, V., Hamzah, M., Sura, S., Amin, H.: Assessing the acceptability of adaptive e-learning system. In: 5th Intl Conf. on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society. vol. 16, No. 3 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. [16] Long, Y., Aleven, V.: Gamification of joint student/system control over problem selection in a linear equation tutor. In: Intl Conf. on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. pp. 378–387. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  17. [17] Crossley, S.A., Muldner, K., McNamara, D.S.: Idea generation in student writing: Computational assessments and links to successful writing. Written Communication 33(3), 328–354 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aurelio López-López
    • 1
    Email author
  • Samuel González-López
    • 2
  • Jesús Miguel García-Gorrostieta
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute of Astrophysics, Optics and Electronics, Department of Computer SciencesSanta María TonantzintlaMéxico
  2. 2.Department of Information TechnologiesTechnological University of NogalesNogalesMéxico

Personalised recommendations