daatec.blogg.se - Digital Me by J.M. Varner

Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. On the relation between automated essay scoring and modern views of the writing construct. Automated scoring and feedback systems: Where are we and where are we heading? Language Testing, 27, 291-300. English language learners and automated scoring of essays: Critical considerations. The Writing Pal intelligent tutoring system: Usability testing and development. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5. An overview of automated scoring of essays. Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective.

Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2 nd ed.) (pp. The neglected "R." College Entrance Examination Board, New York. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 237-242. Improving the writing skills of college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445-476. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. 5, 2012, nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing.

National Assessment of Educational Progress.

20, 2010, nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/ Google Scholar Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications. A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387. College Composition and Communication, 66, 664-682. Retention and writing instruction: Implications for access and pedagogy. UC and SAT: Predictive validity and differential impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California. These results suggest that information readily available in writing training systems can inform affect detectors and ultimately improve student models within intelligent tutoring systems. Taken together, indices related to students' academic abilities, text properties, and keystroke logs were able classify high and low engagement and boredom in writing sessions with accuracies between 76.5% and 77.3%.

The results suggest that these three categories of indices were successful in modeling students' affective states during writing. We used individual difference measures, text indices, and keystroke analyses to predict engagement and boredom in 132 writing sessions.

This study takes an initial step toward addressing this gap by building a predictive model of students' affect using information that can potentially be collected by computer systems. In particular, these systems tend to place the strongest emphasis on delivering accurate scores, and therefore, tend to overlook additional indices that may contribute to students' success, such as their affective states during writing practice. Although generally successful in providing accurate scores, a common criticism of these systems is their lack of personalization and adaptive instruction. Writing training systems have been developed to provide students with instruction and deliberate practice on their writing.