Correlations between automated rhetorical analysis and tutors' grades on student essays

Publisher:
ACM
Publication Type:
Conference Proceeding
Citation:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2723576&picked=prox&cfid=677454654&cftoken=37599446, 2015, pp. 355 - 359
Issue Date:
2015
Full metadata record
Files in This Item:
Filename Description Size
Thumbnailp355-simsek.pdf Published version347.25 kB
Adobe PDF
When assessing student essays, educators look for the students' ability to present and pursue well-reasoned and strong arguments. Such scholarly argumentation is often articulated by rhetorical metadiscourse. Educators will be necessarily examining metadiscourse in students' writing as signals of the intellectual moves that make their reasoning visible. Therefore students and educators could benefit from available powerful automated textual analysis that is able to detect rhetorical metadiscourse. However, there is a need to validate such technologies in higher education contexts, since they were originally developed in non-educational applications. This paper describes an evaluation study of a particular language analysis tool, the Xerox Incremental Parser (XIP), on undergraduate social science student essays, using the mark awarded as a measure of the quality of the writing. As part of this exploration, the study presented in this paper seeks to assess the quality of the XIP through correlational studies and multiple regression analysis.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: