Profiling support in literacy development: Use of natural language processing to identify learning needs in higher education

IF 4.2 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Assessing Writing Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2023.100787
Patricio A. Pino Castillo , Christian Soto , Rodrigo A. Asún , Fernando Gutiérrez
{"title":"Profiling support in literacy development: Use of natural language processing to identify learning needs in higher education","authors":"Patricio A. Pino Castillo ,&nbsp;Christian Soto ,&nbsp;Rodrigo A. Asún ,&nbsp;Fernando Gutiérrez","doi":"10.1016/j.asw.2023.100787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Reading and writing are core activities in higher education, by means of which students learn to participate in specialized discourses. Although there is consensus on the conceptualization of reading comprehension, its measurement, and development, the same is not true for written expression. Writing complexity has been found to improve with schooling, but there are ample differences between literacy practices at school and at the university that require extra attention in diagnosing students’ compositions. The present study set out to test a natural language processing<span> tool to build domain profiles of writing complexity in first-year university students at a private university. The processing of texts resulted in 49 indices which, after exploratory factor analysis and theoretical discussion, gave rise to 4 dimensions of complexity explaining 52.3% of variance: lexical richness, syntactic complexity, informative text structure and specialized language use. Significant differences were found between more and less skilled writers in the aggregated scores, lexical richness, and syntactic complexity. Interestingly, novice and expert writers did not differ significantly in more over-arching aspects of writing. We discuss how this technology can help identify students’ needs in more superficial aspects of writing complexity that have been shown to improve by means of different strategies.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":46865,"journal":{"name":"Assessing Writing","volume":"58 ","pages":"Article 100787"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessing Writing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293523000958","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Reading and writing are core activities in higher education, by means of which students learn to participate in specialized discourses. Although there is consensus on the conceptualization of reading comprehension, its measurement, and development, the same is not true for written expression. Writing complexity has been found to improve with schooling, but there are ample differences between literacy practices at school and at the university that require extra attention in diagnosing students’ compositions. The present study set out to test a natural language processing tool to build domain profiles of writing complexity in first-year university students at a private university. The processing of texts resulted in 49 indices which, after exploratory factor analysis and theoretical discussion, gave rise to 4 dimensions of complexity explaining 52.3% of variance: lexical richness, syntactic complexity, informative text structure and specialized language use. Significant differences were found between more and less skilled writers in the aggregated scores, lexical richness, and syntactic complexity. Interestingly, novice and expert writers did not differ significantly in more over-arching aspects of writing. We discuss how this technology can help identify students’ needs in more superficial aspects of writing complexity that have been shown to improve by means of different strategies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对读写能力发展的分析支持:利用自然语言处理来识别高等教育中的学习需求
阅读和写作是高等教育的核心活动,学生通过阅读和写作来学习参与专业话语。尽管在阅读理解的概念化、测量和发展方面存在共识,但书面表达却并非如此。人们发现,写作的复杂性会随着学校教育而提高,但学校和大学的识字实践之间存在很大差异,需要在诊断学生作文时格外注意。本研究旨在测试一种自然语言处理工具,以建立私立大学一年级学生写作复杂性的领域档案。经过探索性因素分析和理论讨论,文本处理产生了49个指标,这些指标产生了4个维度的复杂性,解释了52.3%的方差:词汇丰富度、句法复杂性、信息性文本结构和专业语言使用。在综合得分、词汇丰富度和句法复杂性方面,熟练程度较高的作家和不熟练程度较低的作家之间存在显著差异。有趣的是,新手作家和专家作家在写作的主要方面没有显著差异。我们讨论了这项技术如何帮助识别学生在写作复杂性的更肤浅方面的需求,这些方面已经通过不同的策略得到了改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Assessing Writing
Assessing Writing Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
17.90%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Assessing Writing is a refereed international journal providing a forum for ideas, research and practice on the assessment of written language. Assessing Writing publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges concerning writing assessments of all kinds, including traditional (direct and standardised forms of) testing of writing, alternative performance assessments (such as portfolios), workplace sampling and classroom assessment. The journal focuses on all stages of the writing assessment process, including needs evaluation, assessment creation, implementation, and validation, and test development.
期刊最新文献
A comparative study of voice in Chinese English-major undergraduates’ timed and untimed argument writing The impact of task duration on the scoring of independent writing responses of adult L2-English writers A structural equation investigation of linguistic features as indices of writing quality in assessed secondary-level EMI learners’ scientific reports Detecting and assessing AI-generated and human-produced texts: The case of second language writing teachers Validating an integrated reading-into-writing scale with trained university students
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1