Utilizing Natural Language Processing for Automated Assessment of Classroom Discussion

Rigorous and interactive class discussions that support students to engage in high-level thinking and reasoning are essential to learning and are a central component of most teaching interventions. However, formally assessing discussion quality 'at scale' is expensive and infeasible for most researchers. In this work, we experimented with various modern natural language processing (NLP) techniques to automatically generate rubric scores for individual dimensions of classroom text discussion quality. Specifically, we worked on a dataset of 90 classroom discussion transcripts consisting of over 18000 turns annotated with fine-grained Analyzing Teaching Moves (ATM) codes and focused on four Instructional Quality Assessment (IQA) rubrics. Despite the limited amount of data, our work shows encouraging results in some of the rubrics while suggesting that there is room for improvement in the others. We also found that certain NLP approaches work better for certain rubrics.

Predicting the Quality of Revisions in Argumentative Writing

The ability to revise in response to feedback is critical to students' writing success. In the case of argument writing in specific, identifying whether an argument revision (AR) is successful or not is a complex problem because AR quality is dependent on the overall content of an argument. For example, adding the same evidence sentence could strengthen or weaken existing claims in different argument contexts (ACs). To address this issue we developed Chain-of-Thought prompts to facilitate ChatGPT-generated ACs for AR quality predictions. The experiments on two corpora, our annotated elementary essays and existing college essays benchmark, demonstrate the superiority of the proposed ACs over baselines.

Annotation and Classification of Evidence and Reasoning Revisions in Argumentative Writing

Automated writing evaluation systems can improve students' writing insofar as students attend to the feedback provided and revise their essay drafts in ways aligned with such feedback. Existing research on revision of argumentative writing in such systems, however, has focused on the types of revisions students make (e.g., surface vs. content) rather than the extent to which revisions actually respond to the feedback provided and improve the essay. We introduce an annotation scheme to capture the nature of sentence-level revisions of evidence use and reasoning (the `RER' scheme) and apply it to 5th- and 6th-grade students' argumentative essays. We show that reliable manual annotation can be achieved and that revision annotations correlate with a holistic assessment of essay improvement in line with the feedback provided. Furthermore, we explore the feasibility of automatically classifying revisions according to our scheme.

eRevise: Using Natural Language Processing to Provide Formative Feedback on Text Evidence Usage in Student Writing

Writing a good essay typically involves students revising an initial paper draft after receiving feedback. We present eRevise, a web-based writing and revising environment that uses natural language processing features generated for rubric-based essay scoring to trigger formative feedback messages regarding students' use of evidence in response-to-text writing. By helping students understand the criteria for using text evidence during writing, eRevise empowers students to better revise their paper drafts. In a pilot deployment of eRevise in 7 classrooms spanning grades 5 and 6, the quality of text evidence usage in writing improved after students received formative feedback then engaged in paper revision.