The ability to revise essays in response to feedback is important for students' writing success. An automated writing evaluation (AWE) system that supports students in revising their essays is thus essential. We present eRevise+RF, an enhanced AWE system for assessing student essay revisions (e.g., changes made to an essay to improve its quality in response to essay feedback) and providing revision feedback. We deployed the system with 6 teachers and 406 students across 3 schools in Pennsylvania and Louisiana. The results confirmed its effectiveness in (1) assessing student essays in terms of evidence usage, (2) extracting evidence and reasoning revisions across essays, and (3) determining revision success in responding to feedback. The evaluation also suggested eRevise+RF is a helpful system for young students to improve their argumentative writing skills through revision and formative feedback.
Coherence in writing, an aspect that second-language (L2) English learners often struggle with, is crucial in assessing L2 English writing. Existing automated writing evaluation systems primarily use basic surface linguistic features to detect coherence in writing. However, little effort has been made to correct the detected incoherence, which could significantly benefit L2 language learners seeking to improve their writing. To bridge this gap, we introduce DECOR, a novel benchmark that includes expert annotations for detecting incoherence in L2 English writing, identifying the underlying reasons, and rewriting the incoherent sentences. To our knowledge, DECOR is the first coherence assessment dataset specifically designed for improving L2 English writing, featuring pairs of original incoherent sentences alongside their expert-rewritten counterparts. Additionally, we fine-tuned models to automatically detect and rewrite incoherence in student essays. We find that incorporating specific reasons for incoherence during fine-tuning consistently improves the quality of the rewrites, achieving a result that is favored in both automatic and human evaluations.
The utilization of technology in second language learning and teaching has become ubiquitous. For the assessment of writing specifically, automated writing evaluation (AWE) and grammatical error correction (GEC) have become immensely popular and effective methods for enhancing writing proficiency and delivering instant and individualized feedback to learners. By leveraging the power of natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning algorithms, AWE and GEC systems have been developed separately to provide language learners with automated corrective feedback and more accurate and unbiased scoring that would otherwise be subject to examiners. In this paper, we propose an integrated system for automated writing evaluation with corrective feedback as a means of bridging the gap between AWE and GEC results for second language learners. This system enables language learners to simulate the essay writing tests: a student writes and submits an essay, and the system returns the assessment of the writing along with suggested grammatical error corrections. Given that automated scoring and grammatical correction are more efficient and cost-effective than human grading, this integrated system would also alleviate the burden of manually correcting innumerable essays.
Responding to the increasing need for automated writing evaluation (AWE) systems to assess language use beyond lexis and grammar (Burstein et al., 2016), we introduce a new approach to identify rhetorical features of stance in academic English writing. Drawing on the discourse-analytic framework of engagement in the Appraisal analysis (Martin & White, 2005), we manually annotated 4,688 sentences (126,411 tokens) for eight rhetorical stance categories (e.g., PROCLAIM, ATTRIBUTION) and additional discourse elements. We then report an experiment to train machine learning models to identify and categorize the spans of these stance expressions. The best-performing model (RoBERTa + LSTM) achieved macro-averaged F1 of .7208 in the span identification of stance-taking expressions, slightly outperforming the intercoder reliability estimates before adjudication (F1 = .6629).
One of the challenges of developing a summarization model arises from the difficulty in measuring the factual inconsistency of the generated text. In this study, we reinterpret the decoder overconfidence-regularizing objective suggested in (Miao et al., 2021) as a hallucination risk measurement to better estimate the quality of generated summaries. We propose a reference-free metric, HaRiM+, which only requires an off-the-shelf summarization model to compute the hallucination risk based on token likelihoods. Deploying it requires no additional training of models or ad-hoc modules, which usually need alignment to human judgments. For summary-quality estimation, HaRiM+ records state-of-the-art correlation to human judgment on three summary-quality annotation sets: FRANK, QAGS, and SummEval. We hope that our work, which merits the use of summarization models, facilitates the progress of both automated evaluation and generation of summary.
This paper surveys and organizes research works in an under-studied area, which we call automated evaluation for student argumentative writing. Unlike traditional automated writing evaluation that focuses on holistic essay scoring, this field is more specific: it focuses on evaluating argumentative essays and offers specific feedback, including argumentation structures, argument strength trait score, etc. The focused and detailed evaluation is useful for helping students acquire important argumentation skill. In this paper we organize existing works around tasks, data and methods. We further experiment with BERT on representative datasets, aiming to provide up-to-date baselines for this field.
Automated writing evaluation systems can improve students' writing insofar as students attend to the feedback provided and revise their essay drafts in ways aligned with such feedback. Existing research on revision of argumentative writing in such systems, however, has focused on the types of revisions students make (e.g., surface vs. content) rather than the extent to which revisions actually respond to the feedback provided and improve the essay. We introduce an annotation scheme to capture the nature of sentence-level revisions of evidence use and reasoning (the `RER' scheme) and apply it to 5th- and 6th-grade students' argumentative essays. We show that reliable manual annotation can be achieved and that revision annotations correlate with a holistic assessment of essay improvement in line with the feedback provided. Furthermore, we explore the feasibility of automatically classifying revisions according to our scheme.
While automated essay scoring (AES) can reliably grade essays at scale, automated writing evaluation (AWE) additionally provides formative feedback to guide essay revision. However, a neural AES typically does not provide useful feature representations for supporting AWE. This paper presents a method for linking AWE and neural AES, by extracting Topical Components (TCs) representing evidence from a source text using the intermediate output of attention layers. We evaluate performance using a feature-based AES requiring TCs. Results show that performance is comparable whether using automatically or manually constructed TCs for 1) representing essays as rubric-based features, 2) grading essays.
Writing a good essay typically involves students revising an initial paper draft after receiving feedback. We present eRevise, a web-based writing and revising environment that uses natural language processing features generated for rubric-based essay scoring to trigger formative feedback messages regarding students' use of evidence in response-to-text writing. By helping students understand the criteria for using text evidence during writing, eRevise empowers students to better revise their paper drafts. In a pilot deployment of eRevise in 7 classrooms spanning grades 5 and 6, the quality of text evidence usage in writing improved after students received formative feedback then engaged in paper revision.
Automated writing evaluation (AWE) has been shown to be an effective mechanism for quickly providing feedback to students. It has already seen wide adoption in enterprise-scale applications and is starting to be adopted in large-scale contexts. Training an AWE model has historically required a single batch of several hundred writing examples and human scores for each of them. This requirement limits large-scale adoption of AWE since human-scoring essays is costly. Here we evaluate algorithms for ensuring that AWE models are consistently trained using the most informative essays. Our results show how to minimize training set sizes while maximizing predictive performance, thereby reducing cost without unduly sacrificing accuracy. We conclude with a discussion of how to integrate this approach into large-scale AWE systems.