4.5 Article

Automated Guidance for Thermodynamics Essays: Critiquing Versus Revisiting

Journal

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages 861-874

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-015-9569-1

Keywords

Inquiry; Automated scoring; Guidance; Critique; Revisit; Thermodynamics

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [1119670]
  2. Direct For Education and Human Resources [1119670, 1418423] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  3. Direct For Education and Human Resources
  4. Division Of Research On Learning [0918743] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Division Of Research On Learning [1119670, 1418423] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Middle school students struggle to explain thermodynamics concepts. In this study, to help students succeed, we use a natural language processing program to analyze their essays explaining the aspects of thermodynamics and provide guidance based on the automated score. The 346 sixth-grade students were assigned to either the critique condition where they criticized an explanation or the revisit condition where they reviewed visualizations. Within each condition, the student was assigned one of two types of tailored guidance based on the sophistication of their original essay. Both forms of guidance led to significant improvement in student understanding on the posttest. Guidance was more effective for students with low prior knowledge than for those with high prior knowledge (consistent with regression toward the mean). However, analysis of student responses to the guidance illustrates the value of aligning guidance with prior knowledge. All students were required to revise their essay as an embedded assessment. While effective, teachers involved in this study reported that revising is resisted by students and does not align with typical, vocabulary-focused classroom writing activities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available