Effects of Scenario-Based Assessment on Students' Writing Processes

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published Jun 28, 2020
Hongwen Guo Mo Zhang Paul Deane Randy Bennett

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of a scenario-based assessment design on students' writing processes. An experimental data set consisting of four design conditions was used in which the number of scenarios (one or two) and the placement of the essay task with respect to the lead-in tasks (first vs. last) were varied. Students' writing processes on the essay task were recorded using keystroke logs. Each keystroke action was classified into one of four writing states: planning, text production, local edit, or jump edit, and a semi-Markov model was fit to the data. Results showed that the single-scenario and essay-last design encouraged fewer but longer editing states compared to the alternative designs. Additionally, this task ordering appeared to have enabled more fluent and efficient text production when paired with a sin- gle scenario. These results seem explainable from cognitive writing theory, particularly with respect to working memory load. Limitations and future directions for research are also discussed.

How to Cite

Guo, H., Zhang, M., Deane, P., & Bennett, R. (2020). Effects of Scenario-Based Assessment on Students’ Writing Processes. JEDM | Journal of Educational Data Mining, 12(1), 19-45. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3911797
Abstract 309 | PDF Downloads 135

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

semi-Markov process, writing instruction, keystroke logs

References
BAAIJEN, V. M., GALBRAITH, D., AND DE GLOPPER, K. 2012. Keystroke analysis: Reflections on procedures and measures. Written Communication 29, 3, 246–277.

BENNETT, R. E., DEANE, P., AND VAN RIJN, P. W. 2016. From cognitive domain theory to assessment practice. Educational Psychologist 51, 82–107.

BREETVELT, I., VAN DEN BERGH, H., AND RIJLAARSDAM, G. 1994. Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how? Cognition and Instruction 12, 2, 103–123.

COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE . 2010. Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, science, and technical subjects.

COX, D. R. 1972. Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 34, 2, 187–220.

DEANE, P., FOWLES, M., BALDWIN, D., AND PERSKY, H. 2011. The CBAL summative writing assessment: A draft eighth-grade design. Research Memorandum No. RM-11-01). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

DEANE, P., ODENDAHL, N., QUINLAN, T., FOLWES, M., WELSH, C., AND BIVENS-TATUM, J. 2018. Cognitive models of writing: Writing proficiency as a complex integrated skill. ETS Research Report RR-08-55, 1–120.

DEANE, P., SONG, Y., VAN RIJN, P., O'REILLY, T., FOWLES, M., BENNETT, R., SABATINI, J., AND ZHANG, M. 2019. The case for scenario-based assessment of written argumentation. Reading and Writing 32, 6 (Jun), 1575–1606.

DEANE, P. AND ZHANG, M. 2015. Exploring the feasibility of using writing process features to assess text production skills. ETS Research Report Series 2015, 2, 1–16.

GUO, H., DEANE, P. D., VAN RIJN, P. W., ZHANG, M., AND BENNETT, R. E. 2018. Modeling basic writing processes from keystroke logs. Journal of Educational Measurement 55, 2, 194–216.

GUO, H., ZHANG, M., DEANE, P., AND BENNETT, R. E. 2019. Writing process differences in subgroups reflected in keystroke logs. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 44, 5, 571–596.

HAYES, J. R. 2012. Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication 29, 3, 369–388.

JACKSON, C. 2011. Multi-state models for panel data: The msm package for R. Journal of Statistical Software, Articles 38, 8, 1–28.

KELLOGG, R. T. 2001. Competition for working memory among writing processes. The American Journal of Psychology 114, 2, 175–191.

KROL, A. AND SAINT-PIERRE, P. 2015. SemiMarkov: An R package for parametric estimation in multistate semiMarkov models. Journal of Statistical Software, Articles 66, 6, 1–16.

LEIJTEN, M. AND VAN WAES, L. 2013. Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication 30, 3, 358–392.

UTO, M., MIYAZAWA, Y., KATO, Y. AND NAKAJIMA, K., AND KUWATA, H. 2020. Time- and learner-dependent hidden Markov model for writing process analysis using keystroke log data. Int J Artif Intell Educ, 1–28.

ZHANG, M., BENNETT, R. E., DEANE, P., AND VAN RIJN, P. W. 2019. Are there gender differences in how students write their essays? An analysis of writing processes. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 38, 2, 14–26.

ZHANG, M., HAO, J., LI, C., AND DEANE, P. 2018. Defining personalized writing burst measures of translation using keystroke logs. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, K. E. Boyer and M. Yudelson, Eds. Buffalo, NY, 549–552.

ZHANG, M., VAN RIJN, P. W., DEANE, P., AND BENNETT, R. E. 2019. Scenario-based assessments in writing: An experimental study. Educational Assessment 24, 2, 73–90.

ZHANG, M., ZHU, M., DEANE, P., AND GUO, H. 2019. Identifying and comparing writing process patterns using keystroke logs. In Quantitative Psychology, M. Wiberg, S. Culpepper, R. Janssen, J. González, and D. Molenaar, Eds. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 367–381.

ZHU, M., ZHANG, M., AND DEANE, P. 2019. Analysis of keystroke sequences in writing logs. ETS Research Report Series.
Section
Articles