Advances in Automated Scoring of Writing for Performance Assessment

The ability to convey information through writing is a central component of real-world skills. However, assessing writing can be time consuming, limiting the timeliness of feedback. Automated scoring of writing has been shown to be effective across a number of applications. This chapter focuses on how automated scoring of writing has been extended to assessing and training of real-world skills in a range of content domains. It illustrates examples of how the technology is used and considerations for its implementation. The examples include 1) Formative feedback on writing quality, 2) scoring of content in student writing. 3) improving reading comprehension through summary writing, and 4) assessment of writing integrated in higher-level performance tasks in professional domains. WRITING FOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS Writing is the ability to create meaning through symbols (e.g., Kellogg, 1999) and to communicate that meaning to others. Communicating information through writing is considered one of the key 21st Century skills and has been incorporated as a critical component in many national standards (e.g., Ananiadou & Claro, 2009; OECD, 2013). For example, the U.S. Common Core State Standards require students to develop more rigorous writing skills with a stronger emphasis on the ability to synthesize and summarize informational text, formulate arguments, as well as respond appropriately to source documents. This puts greater emphasis on writing for a purpose, with students linking ideas to texts and argumentation and writing across the curriculum. With the advent of information technologies, writing also plays a more central role in everyday communication. Information can be readily published on the web and communication via writing has become more ubiquitous through email, chat, and other collaborative tools. Thus, within an information economy, writing is not just an academic pursuit, it is the primary conduit for Peter W. Foltz Pearson, USA & University of Colorado – Boulder, USA

[1]  Katerina Ananiadou,et al.  21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries , 2009 .

[2]  Jill Burstein,et al.  Handbook of Automated Essay Evaluation Current Applications and New Directions , 2018 .

[3]  Marti A. Hearst The debate on automated essay grading , 2000 .

[4]  J. Hattie,et al.  The Power of Feedback , 2007 .

[5]  Peter W. Foltz,et al.  Latent semantic analysis for text-based research , 1996 .

[6]  R. Desjardins,et al.  OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills , 2013 .

[7]  Donald E. Powers,et al.  Immediate Feedback and Opportunity to Revise Answers to Open-Ended Questions , 2010 .

[8]  P. Black,et al.  Assessment and Classroom Learning , 1998 .

[9]  Lynn A. Streeter,et al.  Automating Expertise in Collaborative Learning Environments. , 2010 .

[10]  V. Shute Focus on Formative Feedback , 2008 .

[11]  Thomas K. Landauer,et al.  Word Maturity: A New Metric for Word Knowledge , 2011 .

[12]  David M. Williamson,et al.  A Framework for Evaluation and Use of Automated Scoring , 2012 .

[13]  Peter W. Foltz,et al.  Supporting Content-Based Feedback in On-Line Writing Evaluation with LSA , 2000, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[14]  Chris Brew,et al.  Is getting the right answer just about choosing the right words? The role of syntactically-informed features in short answer scoring , 2014, ArXiv.

[15]  Peter W. Foltz,et al.  An introduction to latent semantic analysis , 1998 .

[16]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Cognitive Modeling and Intelligent Tutoring , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[17]  T. Landauer,et al.  Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis , 1990 .

[18]  T. Goldberg,et al.  Quantifying incoherence in speech: An automated methodology and novel application to schizophrenia , 2007, Schizophrenia Research.

[19]  Scott Dooley,et al.  Summary Street®: Computer Support for Comprehension and Writing , 2005 .

[20]  Peter W. Foltz,et al.  The intelligent essay assessor: Applications to educational technology , 1999 .

[21]  Yigal Attali,et al.  EFFECT OF IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK AND REVISION ON PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF OPEN‐ENDED GRE® SUBJECT TEST ITEMS , 2008 .

[22]  Bob Rehder,et al.  Using latent semantic analysis to assess knowledge: Some technical considerations , 1998 .

[23]  Tara Porter,et al.  The State of WAC/WID in 2010: Methods and Results of the U.S. Survey of the International WAC/WID Mapping Project. , 2010 .

[24]  John Sabatini,et al.  Broadening the scope of reading comprehension using scenario-based assessments: Preliminary findings and challenges , 2014, L’Année psychologique.

[25]  Beata Beigman Klebanov,et al.  Content Importance Models for Scoring Writing From Sources , 2014, ACL.

[26]  Martin Chodorow,et al.  Automated Essay Evaluation: The Criterion Online Writing Service , 2004, AI Mag..

[27]  Karen E. Lochbaum,et al.  A New Formative Assessment Technology for Reading and Writing , 2009 .

[28]  T. Landauer,et al.  A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. , 1997 .

[29]  S. Graham,et al.  A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. , 2007 .

[30]  Peter W. Foltz,et al.  The Measurement of Textual Coherence with Latent Semantic Analysis. , 1998 .