Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying Points for Pedagogical Intervention Based on Student Writing: Two Case Studies for the “Point of Originality”

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Learning Analytics

Abstract

Integrating technology into higher education curricula to extend the physical boundaries of the classroom can be of significant value, as it enables students to interact and learn outside of class time. This is particularly true in larger gateway courses, where there are fewer opportunities for students to engage in higher-order thinking and to construct their own understanding of core concepts. While the introduction of technology like blogging can create a successful learning experience, any large number of students creates additional noise that makes it harder for instructors to isolate the students most in need of help. This chapter describes an analysis method and tool that uses lexical analysis to allow an instructor to automatically track how a student’s written language migrates from mere paraphrase to mastery, isolating the moment when the student’s understanding of core concepts best demonstrates an ability to place that concept into his or her own words, a moment that we have chosen to call the "Point of Originality." Through two case studies, higher point of originality values is shown to correspond strongly with likely student achievement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alterman, R., & Larusson, J. A. (2009). Modeling participation within a community. In N. A. Taatgen & H. V. Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1680–1685). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alterman, R. & Larusson, J. A. (2010). Collaborative sensemaking in the blogosphere. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1661–1666). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Althaus, S. L. (1997). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with on-line discussions. Communication Education, 46(3), 158–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–459). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd-Graber, J., Blei, D., & Zhu, X. (2007). A topic model for word sense disambiguation. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (pp. 1023–1033). Prague: Association for Computational Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, C. A. (2004). Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding in biology courses. BioScience, 54(11), 1034–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., & Van Lehn, K. A. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 69–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J. L., & Robinson, P. (2000). The argument for making large classes seem small. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(81), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deitering, A., & Huston, S. (2004). Weblogs and the middle space for learning. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8(4), 273–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, H. S., & Wagner, C. (2005). Learning with weblogs: An empirical investigation. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS ‘05) (pp. 1–9). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, P. (2008). Engaging the YouTube Google-eyed generation: Strategies for using Web 2.0 in Teaching and Learning. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 6, 119–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eilam, B. (2002). Phases of learning: Ninth graders’ skill acquisition. Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elias, T. (2011). Learning analytics: Definitions, processes and potential. Unpublished Internal Whitepaper of Athabasca University, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferdig, R. E., & Trammell, K. D. (2004). Content delivery in the “blogosphere”. Technological Horizons in Education, 31(7), 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flask (A Python Microframework). Retrieved from http://flask.pocoo.org

  • Fritz, J. (2010). Classroom walls that talk: Using online course activity data of successful students to raise self-awareness of underperforming peers. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 89–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerdeman, R. D., Russell, A. A., & Worden, K. J. (2007). Web-based student writing and reviewing in a large biology lecture course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, G. V., & Smith, M. L. (1979). Meta-analysis of research on class size and achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(1), 2–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greer, L., & Heaney, P. J. (2004). Real-time analysis of student comprehension: An assessment of electronic student response technology in an introductory earth science course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52, 345–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, T. (2011). Pragmatic analytics: Insight, representation, and structure. Keynote Presented at the 1st International Conference Learning Analytics and Knowledge. Banff, Alberta, Canada: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffaker, D. (2005). The educated blogger: Using weblogs to promote literacy in the classroom. AACE Journal, 13(2), 91–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juang, Y. (2008). Learning by blogging: Warm-up and review lessons to facilitate knowledge building in classrooms. In: Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 574–575). Washington, DC: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korthagen, F., & Lagerwerf, B. (1995). Levels in Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(10), 1011–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, G. E., & Pope, S. T. (1988). A cookbook for using the model-view-controller user interface paradigm in the smalltalk-80 system. Journal of Object Oriented Programming, 1, 26–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larusson, J. A., & Alterman, R. (2009). Wikis to support the “collaborative” part of collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(4), 371–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larusson, J. A., & White, B. (2012). Monitoring students’ progress through their written point of originality. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2012) (pp. 212–221). Vancouver, Canada: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebrun, M. (1999). Des technologies pour enseigner et apprendre. Brussels: De Boeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor, J. (2000). Restructuring large classes to create communities of learners. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(81), 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Berthiaume, D., Fairbank-Roch, G., & Owen, M. (2004). Reflection on teaching: Types and goals of reflection. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 10(4), 337–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56(4), 693–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeachie, W. J., & Chism, N. (1986). Teaching tips. Washington, DC: DC Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills-Jones, A. (1999). Active learning in IS education: Choosing effective strategies for teaching large classes in higher education. In: Proceedings of 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–3). ACIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. T. (1985). The relationship between the originality of essays and variables in the problem-discovery process: A study of creative and noncreative middle school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 19(1), 84–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, N. (2001). Writing to learn: One theory, two rationales. In P. Tynjälä, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 23–36). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D., & Boyle, J. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 457–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikolova, S., Boyd-Graber, J., & Fellbaum, C. (2009). Collecting semantic similarity ratings to connect concepts in assistive communication tools. In A. Mehler, K. Kühnberger, H. Lobin, H. Lüngen, A. Storrer, & A. Witt (Eds.), Modelling, learning and processing of text-technological data structures. Springer studies in computational intelligence (pp. 81–93). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oravec, J. A. (2002). Bookmarking the world: Weblog applications in education. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(7), 616–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Python Programming Language—Official Website. Retrieved from http://python.org

  • Rashed, G., & Ahsan, R. (2012). Python in computational science: Applications and possibilities. International Journal of Computer Applications, 26(20), 26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 155–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, R. (2001). Calibrated Peer Review™ an application to increase student reading & writing skills. The American Biology Teacher, 63(7), 474–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1995). Scaffolds for teaching higher-order cognitive strategies. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice (pp. 134–153). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shih, M. (1986). Content-based approaches to teaching academic writing. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), 617–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (1980). Meta-analysis of research on class size and its relationship to attitudes and instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 17(4), 419–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SQLite Homepage. Retrieved from http://sqlite.org

  • Taylor, B. P. (1981). Content and written FORM: A two-way street. TESOL Quarterly, 15(1), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tynjälä, P., Mason, L., & Lonka, K. (2001). Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (1st ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. (2003). An introduction to python. Bristol, UK: Network Theory Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walberg, H. J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America’s schools. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. B., & Jacobs, J. (2004). Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the higher education sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), 232–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, L. (2005). Blogs versus discussion forums in postgraduate online continuing medical education. Paper presented at Blogtalk Down Under Conference, May 19-22, Sydney, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, D., & Powers, D. M. (2005). Measuring semantic similarity in the taxonomy of WordNet. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Australasian Conference on Computer Science-Volume 38 (pp. 322–330). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to the students in the CS 33b and NPSY 22 courses for providing the data for this research project and to Richard Alterman and Robert Sekuler, the instructors for those courses.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA

    Brandon White

  2. Center for Digital Data, Analytics and Adaptive Learning at Pearson, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Johann Ari Larusson

Authors
  1. Brandon White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johann Ari Larusson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brandon White .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Digital Data, Analytics and Adaptive Learning at Pearson, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Johann Ari Larusson

  2. Dept. of English, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA

    Brandon White

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

White, B., Larusson, J.A. (2014). Identifying Points for Pedagogical Intervention Based on Student Writing: Two Case Studies for the “Point of Originality”. In: Larusson, J., White, B. (eds) Learning Analytics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3305-7_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation