Abstract
AbstractFeedback is an essential component of learning environments. However, providing feedback in populated classes can be challenging for teachers. On the one hand, it is unlikely that a single kind of feedback works for all students considering the heterogeneous nature of their needs. On the other hand, delivering personalized feedback is infeasible and time-consuming. Available automated feedback systems have helped solve the problem to some extent. However, they can provide personalized feedback only after a draft is submitted. To help struggling students during the writing process, we can use machine learning to cluster students who benefit the same from feedback using keystroke logs. We can apply the results in automated feedback systems that provide process feedback. In this study, we aim to find homogeneous student profiles based on their writing process indicators. We use fourteen process indicators to find clusters in the data set. We used these measures in a four-stage analysis, including (a) data preprocessing, (b) dimensionality reduction, (c) clustering, and (d) the analysis of the writing quality. Clustering techniques identified five different profiles: Strategic planners, Rapid writers, Emerging planners, Average writers, and Low-performing writers. We further validated the emerged profiles by comparing them concerning students' writing quality. The present work broadens our knowledge of how students interact with writing tasks and addresses how variations in writing behaviors lead to qualitatively different products. We discuss the theoretical underpinnings and potentials of finding profiles of students during writing in higher education.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference53 articles.
1. Allen, L. K., Jacovina, M. E., Dascalu, M., Roscoe, R. D., Kent, K. M., Likens, A. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). {ENTER} ing the time series {SPACE}: Uncovering the writing process through keystroke analyses. International Educational Data Mining Society.
2. Al-Saadi, Z. T., & Galbraith, D. (2020). Does the revision process differ across the language of writing (L1 vs. FL), FL language proficiency, and gender? An empirical study using keystroke logging data. Writing and Pedagogy.
3. Baaijen, V. M., & Galbraith, D. (2018). Discovery through writing: Relationships with writing processes and text quality. Cognition and Instruction, 36(3), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1456431.
4. Barkaoui, K. (2019). What can L2 writers’ pausing behavior tell us about their L2 writing processes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 529–554. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311900010X.
5. Bowen, N., & Van Waes, L. (2020). Exploring revisions in academic text: Closing the gap between process and product approaches in digital writing. Written Communication, 37(3), 322–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088320916508.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献