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
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1751-0918
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 single 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. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 12(1), 19–45. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3911797
##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.
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.
Issue
Section
Articles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
- Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
- The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons 4.0 License (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- Noncommercial—other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
- No Derivative Works—other users (including Publisher) may not alter, transform, or build upon this Work,with the understanding that any of the above conditions can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
- The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
- Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.