Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3576050.3576053acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslakConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper
Public Access

Automated, content-focused feedback for a writing-to-learn assignment in an undergraduate organic chemistry course

Published: 13 March 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Writing-to-learn (WTL) pedagogy supports the implementation of writing assignments in STEM courses to engage students in conceptual learning. Recent studies in the undergraduate STEM context demonstrate the value of implementing WTL, with findings that WTL can support meaningful learning and elicit students’ reasoning. However, the need for instructors to provide feedback on students’ writing poses a significant barrier to implementing WTL; this barrier is especially notable in the context of introductory organic chemistry courses at large universities, which often have large enrollments. This work describes one approach to overcome this barrier by presenting the development of an automated feedback tool for providing students with formative feedback on their responses to an organic chemistry WTL assignment. This approach leverages machine learning models to identify features of students’ mechanistic reasoning in response to WTL assignments in a second-semester, introductory organic chemistry laboratory course. The automated feedback tool development was guided by a framework for designing automated feedback, theories of self-regulated learning, and the components of effective WTL pedagogy. Herein, we describe the design of the automated feedback tool and report our initial evaluation of the tool through pilot interviews with organic chemistry students.

References

[1]
Paul Anderson, Chris M. Anson, Robert M. Gonyea, and Charles Paine. 2015. The contributions of writing to learning and development: Results from a large-scale multi-institutional study. Research in the Teaching of English 50, 2 (2015), 199–235.
[2]
Paul B. Brandfonbrener, Field M. Watts, and Ginger V. Shultz. 2021. Organic Chemistry Students’ Written Descriptions and Explanations of Resonance and Its Influence on Reactivity. Journal of Chemical Education 98, 11 (2021), 3431–3441. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00660
[3]
François Chollet and Others. 2015. Keras. https://keras.io. https://keras.io
[4]
Galina Deeva, Daria Bogdanova, Estefanía Serral, Monique Snoeck, and Jochen De Weerdt. 2021. A review of automated feedback systems for learners: Classification framework, challenges and opportunities. Computers and Education 162, March 2020 (2021), 104094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104094
[5]
Amber J. Dood, John C. Dood, Daniel Cruz-Ramírez De Arellano, Kimberly B. Fields, and Jeffrey R. Raker. 2020. Analyzing explanations of substitution reactions using lexical analysis and logistic regression techniques. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 21, 1 (2020), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00148d
[6]
Amber J. Dood, John C. Dood, Daniel Cruz-Ramírez De Arellano, Kimberly B. Fields, and Jeffrey R. Raker. 2020. Using the Research Literature to Develop an Adaptive Intervention to Improve Student Explanations of an SN1 Reaction Mechanism. Journal of Chemical Education 97, 10 (2020), 3551–3562. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00569
[7]
Amber J. Dood, Kimberly B. Fields, Daniel Cruz Ramírez de Arellano, and Jeffrey R. Raker. 2019. Development and evaluation of a lewis acid–base tutorial for use in postsecondary organic chemistry courses. Canadian Journal of Chemistry 97, 10 (2019), 711–721. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjc-2018-0479
[8]
Amber J. Dood, Kimberly B. Fields, and Jeffrey R. Raker. 2018. Using Lexical Analysis to Predict Lewis Acid-Base Model Use in Responses to an Acid-Base Proton-Transfer Reaction. Journal of Chemical Education 95, 8 (2018), 1267–1275. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00177
[9]
Amber J Dood and Field M Watts. 2022. Mechanistic Reasoning in Organic Chemistry: A Scoping Review of How Students Describe and Explain Mechanisms in the Chemistry Education Research Literature. Journal of Chemical Education 99, 8 (2022), 2864–2876. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00313
[10]
Solaire A. Finkenstaedt-Quinn, Anne Ruggles Gere, Jason E. Dowd, R. J. Thompson Jr., A. S. Halim, Julie A. Reynolds, Leslie A. Schiff, Pamela Flash, and Ginger V. Shultz. 2022. Postsecondary Faculty Attitudes and Beliefs About Writing-based Pedagogies in the STEM Classroom. CBE Life Sciences Education 21, 3 (2022), 1–11.
[11]
Solaire A. Finkenstaedt-Quinn, Michael Petterson, Anne Gere, and Ginger Shultz. 2021. Praxis of Writing-to-Learn: A Model for the Design and Propagation of Writing-to-Learn in STEM. Journal of Chemical Education 98, 5 (may 2021), 1548–1555. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01482
[12]
Anne Ruggles Gere, Naitnaphit Limlamai, Emily Wilson, Kate MacDougall Saylor, and Raymond Pugh. 2019. Writing and Conceptual Learning in Science: An Analysis of Assignments. Written Communication 36, 1 (2019), 99–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318804820
[13]
Trisha Gupte, Field M. Watts, Jennifer A. Schmidt-McCormack, Ina Zaimi, Anne Ruggles Gere, and Ginger V. Shultz. 2021. Students’ meaningful learning experiences from participating in organic chemistry writing-to-learn activities. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 22 (2021), 396–414. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0rp00266f
[14]
Minsu Ha, Ross H. Nehm, Mark Urban-Lurain, and John E. Merrill. 2011. Applying computerized-scoring models of written biological explanations across courses and colleges: Prospects and limitations. CBE Life Sciences Education 10, 4 (2011), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0081
[15]
Kevin C. Haudek, Jennifer J. Kaplan, Jennifer Knight, Tammy Long, John Merrill, Alan Munn, Ross Nehm, Michelle Smith, and Mark Urban-Lurain. 2011. Harnessing technology to improve formative assessment of student conceptions in STEM: Forging a national network. CBE Life Sciences Education 10, 2 (2011), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-03-0019
[16]
Simon Knight, Antonette Shibani, Sophie Abel, Andrew Gibson, Philippa Ryan, Nicole Sutton, Raechel Wight, Cherie Lucas, Ágnes Sándor, Kirsty Kitto, Ming Liu, Radhika Vijay Mogarkar, and Simon Buckingham Shum. 2020. AcaWriter: A learning analytics tool for formative feedback on academic writing. Journal of Writing Research 12, 1 (2020), 0–2.
[17]
Paula Larrondo, Brian Frank, and Julián Ortiz. 2021. The State of the Art in Providing Automated Feedback To Open-Ended Student Work. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) (2021), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi0.14854
[18]
M. B. Miles, A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldana. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
[19]
Thuy Thi-Nhu Ngo, Howard Hao-Jan Chen, and Kyle Kuo-Wei Lai. 2022. The effectiveness of automated writing evaluation in EFL/ESL writing: a three-level meta-analysis writing. Interactive Learning Environments 0, 0 (2022), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2096642
[20]
David Nicol and Debra MacFarlane-Dick. 2006. Formative assessment and selfregulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31, 2 (2006), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
[21]
Fabian Pedregosa, Gael Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, Jake Vanderplas, Alexandre Passos, David Cournapeau, Matthieu Brucher, Matthieu Perrot, and Edouard Duchesnay. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python Fabian. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 (2011), 2825–2830.
[22]
Michael N. Petterson, Solaire A. Finkenstaedt-Quinn, Anne Ruggles Gere, and Ginger V. Shultz. 2022. The role of authentic contexts and social elements in supporting organic chemistry students’ interactions with writing-to-learn assignments. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 23 (2022), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1rp00181g
[23]
Rosemary S. Russ, Rachel E. Scherr, David Hammer, and Jamie Mikeska. 2008. Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education 92, 3 (2008), 499–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20264
[24]
Jennifer A. Schmidt-McCormack, Jessyca A. Judge, Kellie Spahr, Ellen Yang, Raymond Pugh, Ashley Karlin, Atia Sattar, Barry C. Thompson, Anne Ruggles Gere, and Ginger V. Shultz. 2019. Analysis of the role of a writing-To-learn assignment in student understanding of organic acid-base concepts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 20, 2 (2019), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8rp00260f
[25]
Carola Strobl, Emilie Ailhaud, Kalliopi Benetos, Ann Devitt, Otto Kruse, Antje Proske, and Christian Rapp. 2019. Digital support for academic writing: A review of technologies and pedagogies. Computers and Education 131 (2019), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.12.005
[26]
Robert J. Thompson, Solaire A. Finkenstaedt-Quinn, Ginger V. Shultz, Anne Ruggles Gere, Lorrie Schmid, Jason E. Dowd, Menna Mburi, Leslie A. Schiff, Pamela Flash, and Julie A. Reynolds. 2021. How faculty discipline and beliefs influence instructional uses of writing in STEM undergraduate courses at research-intensive universities. Journal of Writing Research 12, 3 (2021), 625–656. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2021.12.03.04
[27]
Adrien Treuille, Thiago Teixeira, and Amanda Kelly. 2022. Streamlit.
[28]
Field M. Watts, Amber J. Dood, and Ginger V. Shultz. 2022. Exploring students’ written descriptions of organic reaction mechanisms and developing an automated approach for analysing students’ writing. In Student Reasoning in Organic Chemistry, Nicole Graulich and Ginger V. Shultz (Eds.). Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge.
[29]
Field M. Watts, Grace Y. Park, Michael N. Petterson, and Ginger V. Shultz. 2022. Considering alternative reaction mechanisms: students’ use of multiple representations to reason about mechanisms for a writing-to-learn assignment. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 23 (2022), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1rp00301a
[30]
Field M. Watts, Jennifer Schmidt-McCormack, Catherine Wilhelm, Ashley Karlin, Atia Sattar, Barry Thompson, Anne Ruggles Gere, and Ginger Shultz. 2020. What students write about when students write about mechanisms: analysis of features present in students’ written descriptions of an organic reaction mechanism. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 21 (2020), 1148–1172. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00185A
[31]
Ye Xiong and Yi-Fang Brook Wu. 2019. An Automated Feedback System to Support Student Learning in Writing-to-Learn Activities. Proceedings of the 6th 2019 ACM Conference on Learning at Scale, L@S 2019 (2019), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3330430.3333658
[32]
Brandon J. Yik, Amber J. Dood, Daniel Cruz-Ramírez De Arellano, Kimberly B. Fields, and Jeffrey R. Raker. 2021. Development of a machine learning-based tool to evaluate correct Lewis acid-base model use in written responses to open-ended formative assessment items. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 22, 4 (2021), 866–885. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1rp00111f
[33]
Xiaoming Zhai. 2021. Practices and Theories: How Can Machine Learning Assist in Innovative Assessment Practices in Science Education. Journal of Science Education and Technology 30, 2 (2021), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09901-8
[34]
Xiaoming Zhai, Yue Yin, James W. Pellegrino, Kevin C. Haudek, and Lehong Shi. 2020. Applying machine learning in science assessment: a systematic review. Studies in Science Education 56, 1 (2020), 111–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1735757

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Examining the role of assignment design and peer review on student responses and revisions to an organic chemistry writing-to-learn assignmentChemistry Education Research and Practice10.1039/D4RP00024B25:3(721-741)Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)Analysis of organic chemistry students’ developing reasoning elicited by a scaffolded case comparison activityChemistry Education Research and Practice10.1039/D4RP00021H25:3(742-759)Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)Patterns in Explanations of Organic Chemistry Reaction Mechanisms: A Text Analysis by Level of Explanation SophisticationJournal of Chemical Education10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01042Online publication date: 6-Nov-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Automated, content-focused feedback for a writing-to-learn assignment in an undergraduate organic chemistry course

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    LAK2023: LAK23: 13th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference
    March 2023
    692 pages
    ISBN:9781450398657
    DOI:10.1145/3576050
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 13 March 2023

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. automated feedback
    2. self-regulated learning
    3. writing-to-learn

    Qualifiers

    • Short-paper
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Funding Sources

    Conference

    LAK 2023

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 236 of 782 submissions, 30%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)142
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)23
    Reflects downloads up to 10 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Examining the role of assignment design and peer review on student responses and revisions to an organic chemistry writing-to-learn assignmentChemistry Education Research and Practice10.1039/D4RP00024B25:3(721-741)Online publication date: 2024
    • (2024)Analysis of organic chemistry students’ developing reasoning elicited by a scaffolded case comparison activityChemistry Education Research and Practice10.1039/D4RP00021H25:3(742-759)Online publication date: 2024
    • (2024)Patterns in Explanations of Organic Chemistry Reaction Mechanisms: A Text Analysis by Level of Explanation SophisticationJournal of Chemical Education10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01042Online publication date: 6-Nov-2024
    • (2024)Understanding Student Help-Seeking for Contextualizing Chemistry through Curated Chatbot Data AnalysisJournal of Chemical Education10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00766101:11(4837-4846)Online publication date: 4-Nov-2024
    • (2024)Automated Text Analysis of Organic Chemistry Students’ Written HypothesesJournal of Chemical Education10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00757101:3(807-818)Online publication date: 15-Feb-2024
    • (2023)Comparing Student and Generative Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Organic Chemistry Writing-to-Learn AssignmentsJournal of Chemical Education10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00664100:10(3806-3817)Online publication date: 7-Sep-2023
    • (2023)Developing a Curated Chatbot as an Exploratory Communication Tool for Chemistry LearningJournal of Chemical Education10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00520100:10(4092-4098)Online publication date: 29-Sep-2023
    • (2023)Implementation of an R Shiny App for Instructors: An Automated Text Analysis Formative Assessment Tool for Evaluating Lewis Acid–Base Model UseJournal of Chemical Education10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00400100:8(3107-3113)Online publication date: 27-Jul-2023
    • (2023)Exploring new depths: Applying machine learning for the analysis of student argumentation in chemistryJournal of Research in Science Teaching10.1002/tea.2190361:8(1757-1792)Online publication date: 20-Sep-2023

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Get Access

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media