You've got style: detecting writing flexibility across time

Writing researchers have suggested that students who are perceived as strong writers (i.e., those who generate texts that are rated as high quality) demonstrate flexibility in their writing style. While anecdotally this has been a commonly held belief among researchers, scientists, and educators, there is little empirical research to support this claim. This study investigates this hypothesis by examining how students vary in their use of linguistic features across 16 prompt-based essays. Forty-five high school students wrote 16 essays across 8 sessions within an Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) system. Natural language processing (NLP) techniques and Entropy analyses were used to calculate how rigid or flexible students were in their use of narrative linguistic features over time and how this trait related to individual differences in literacy ability and essay quality. Additional analyses indicated that NLP and Entropy reliably detected narrative flexibility (or rigidity) after session 2 and was related to students' prior literacy skills. These exploratory methodologies are important for researchers and educators, as they indicate that writing flexibility is indeed a trait of strong writers and can be detected rather quickly using the combination of textual features and dynamic analyses.

[1]  S. Graham,et al.  The Role of Self-Regulation and Transcription Skills in Writing and Writing Development , 2000 .

[2]  Brent A. Olde,et al.  How does the mind construct and represent stories , 2002 .

[3]  Thomas Newkirk How We Really Comprehend Nonfiction. , 2012 .

[4]  L. Gregg,et al.  Identifying the Organization of Writing Processes , 2016 .

[5]  P. Black,et al.  Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment , 2010 .

[6]  V. Shute SteAlth ASSeSSment in computer-BASed GAmeS to Support leArninG , 2011 .

[7]  Laura K. Allen,et al.  Computer-Based Writing Instruction. , 2016 .

[8]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Educational Game Enjoyment, Perceptions, and Features in an Intelligent Writing Tutor , 2013, FLAIRS.

[9]  Mark Warschauer,et al.  Utility in a Fallible Tool: A Multi-Site Case Study of Automated Writing Evaluation. , 2010 .

[10]  R. Hertwig,et al.  Size, entropy, and density : What is the difference that makes the difference between small and large real-world assortments? , 2009 .

[11]  Laura K. Allen,et al.  Does agency matter?: Exploring the impact of controlled behaviors within a game-based environment , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[12]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Developing pedagogically-guided algorithms for intelligent writing feedback , 2013, Int. J. Learn. Technol..

[13]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Quantifying Text Difficulty with Automated Indices of Cohesion and Semantics , 2007 .

[14]  J. W. Gikandi,et al.  Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[15]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Measuring deep, reflective comprehension and learning strategies: challenges and successes , 2011 .

[16]  Philip M. McCarthy,et al.  Linguistic Features of Writing Quality , 2010 .

[17]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions , 1985 .

[18]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Coh-Metrix: An automated tool for theoretical and applied natural language processing , 2011 .

[19]  Steve Graham,et al.  Writing Next: Effective Strategies to Improve Writing of Adolescents in Middle and High Schools. A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. , 2007 .

[20]  Melissa E. DeRosier,et al.  Zoo U: A Stealth Approach to Social Skills Assessment in Schools , 2012, Adv. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[21]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Computational Analyses of Multilevel Discourse Comprehension , 2011, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[22]  Richard J. Gerrig,et al.  Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading , 1993 .

[23]  Claude E. Shannon,et al.  Prediction and Entropy of Printed English , 1951 .

[24]  Aaron D. Wyner,et al.  Prediction and Entropy of Printed English , 1993 .

[25]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Self-Explanation Reading Training: Effects for Low-Knowledge Readers , 2004 .

[26]  Mark Warschauer,et al.  Automated writing evaluation: defining the classroom research agenda , 2006 .

[27]  Jill Burstein,et al.  AUTOMATED ESSAY SCORING WITH E‐RATER® V.2.0 , 2004 .

[28]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Students' Walk through Tutoring: Using a Random Walk Analysis to Profile Students , 2013, EDM.

[29]  Jill Burstein,et al.  Automated Essay Scoring : A Cross-disciplinary Perspective , 2003 .

[30]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Automated Evaluation of Text and Discourse with Coh-Metrix: The Introduction , 2014 .

[31]  Lawrence M. Rudner,et al.  An Evaluation of IntelliMetric™ Essay Scoring System , 2006 .

[32]  付伶俐 打磨Using Language,倡导新理念 , 2014 .

[33]  Laura K. Allen,et al.  L2 writing practice: Game enjoyment as a key to engagement , 2014 .

[34]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Developing Pedagogically-Guided Threshold Algorithms for Intelligent Automated Essay Feedback , 2012, FLAIRS Conference.

[35]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  What Is Successful Writing? An Investigation Into the Multiple Ways Writers Can Write Successful Essays , 2014 .

[36]  Danielle S McNamara,et al.  Natural language processing in an intelligent writing strategy tutoring system , 2012, Behavior Research Methods.

[37]  E. R. Grossman Entropy and choice time: The effect of frequency unbalance on choice-response , 1953 .

[38]  Ryan Shaun Joazeiro de Baker,et al.  Developing a generalizable detector of when students game the system , 2008, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[39]  P. Patterson,et al.  The impact of communication effectiveness and service quality on relationship commitment in consumer, professional services , 1999 .

[40]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Variation across speech and writing: Methodology , 1988 .

[41]  Lawrence M. Rudner,et al.  An Evaluation of the IntelliMetric[SM] Essay Scoring System. , 2006 .

[42]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Emergent behaviors in computer-based learning environments: Computational signals of catching up , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[43]  E. B. Page Project Essay Grade: PEG. , 2003 .

[44]  L. Faigley,et al.  Coherence, Cohesion, and Writing Quality , 1981, College Composition & Communication.

[45]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Automated Evaluation of Text and Discourse with Coh-Metrix: Coh-Metrix Measures , 2014 .

[46]  Yoon Jeon Kim,et al.  Formative and Stealth Assessment , 2014 .