Automated assessment of paragraph quality: Introduction, body, and conclusion paragraphs

Proceedings of the 24th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society, FLAIRS - 24

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 281-286

  Roscoe, Rod D ^a   Crossley, Scott A ^b   Weston, Jennifer L ^a   McNamara, Danielle S ^a  

^a University of Memphis   (United States)

^b GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATED ASSESSMENT; BODY QUALITY; COMPUTATIONAL MODEL; LINGUISTIC FEATURES; MEDIUM EFFECT; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; WRITING STYLE;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS;

NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

EID: 80052394808     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Albertson, B. (2007). Organization and development features of grade 8 and grade 10 writers: A descriptive study of Delaware Student Testing Programs (DSTP) Essays. Research in the Teaching of English, 41, 435-464.
2. Burstein, J., Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C. (2004). Automated essay evaluation: The Criterion online writing system. AI Magazine, 25, 27-36.
3. Crossley, S., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. (Under review). Classifying paragraph types using linguistics features: Is paragraph positioning important? Research in the Teaching of English.
4. nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society
5. Dean, D. (2000). Muddying boundaries: Mixing genres with five paragraphs, English Journal, 90, 53-56.
6. Dikli, S. (2007). An Overview of automated essay scoring of essays. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(1). Retrieved Nov. 5, 2010 from www.jtla.org.
7. Geiser, S. & Studley, R. (2003). UC and the SAT: Predictive validity and differential impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools of the University of California.
8. Graesser, A., McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193-202.
9. Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). A Meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445-476.
10. Hearst, M. ed. (2002). The debate on automated essay grading. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 15, 22-37
11. Johnson, T., Smagorinksy, P., Thompson, L., & Fry, P. (2003). Learning to teach the five-paragraph theme. Research in the Teaching of English, 38, 136-176.
12. Kellogg, R. & Raulerson, B. (2007). Improving the writing skills of college students. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 237-242.
13. Kintsch, W. & van Dijk, T. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
14. Landauer, T., Laham, D., & Foltz, P. (2003). Automatic essay assessment. Assessment in Education, 10, 295-308.
15. McNamara, D., Crossley, S., & McCarthy, P. (2010). The linguistic features of quality writing. Written Communication, 27, 57-86.
16. McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., McCarthy, P., & Graesser, A. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47, 292-330.
17. National Commission on Writing. (2003). The Neglected "R." NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
18. Rudner, L., Garcia, V., & Welch, C. (2006). An evaluation of the IntelliMetric essay scoring system. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(4). Retrieved Nov. 5, 2010 from www.jtla.org.