An Exploratory Study of Argumentative Writing by Young Students: A Transformer-based Approach

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.09873v1
• Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:55:31 GMT
• Title: An Exploratory Study of Argumentative Writing by Young Students: A Transformer-based Approach
• Authors: Debanjan Ghosh, Beata Beigman Klebanov, Yi Song
• Abstract summary: We present a computational exploration of argument critique writing by young students. Middle school students were asked to criticize an argument presented in the prompt, focusing on identifying and explaining the reasoning flaws. This task resembles an established college-level argument critique task.
• Score: 10.541633715913514
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We present a computational exploration of argument critique writing by young students. Middle school students were asked to criticize an argument presented in the prompt, focusing on identifying and explaining the reasoning flaws. This task resembles an established college-level argument critique task. Lexical and discourse features that utilize detailed domain knowledge to identify critiques exist for the college task but do not perform well on the young students data. Instead, transformer-based architecture (e.g., BERT) fine-tuned on a large corpus of critique essays from the college task performs much better (over 20% improvement in F1 score). Analysis of the performance of various configurations of the system suggests that while children's writing does not exhibit the standard discourse structure of an argumentative essay, it does share basic local sequential structures with the more mature writers.

Related papers

• A School Student Essay Corpus for Analyzing Interactions of Argumentative Structure and Quality [12.187586364960758]
  We present a German corpus of 1,320 essays from school students of two age groups. Each essay has been manually annotated for argumentative structure and quality on multiple levels of granularity. We propose baseline approaches to argument mining and essay scoring, and we analyze interactions between both tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-03T07:31:53Z)
• Exploring Jiu-Jitsu Argumentation for Writing Peer Review Rebuttals [70.22179850619519]
  In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called attitude roots. Recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning, one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu'soft' combat system. We are the first to explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T13:54:01Z)
• Automated Essay Scoring in Argumentative Writing: DeBERTeachingAssistant [0.0]
  We present a transformer-based architecture capable of achieving above-human accuracy in annotating argumentative writing discourse elements. We expand on planned future work investigating the explainability of our model so that actionable feedback can be offered to the student.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-09T23:02:19Z)
• Predicting the Quality of Revisions in Argumentative Writing [2.0572032297930503]
  Chain-of-Thought prompts facilitate ChatGPT-generated ACs for AR quality predictions. Experiments on two corpora, our annotated elementary essays and existing college essays benchmark, demonstrate the superiority of the proposed ACs over baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T13:39:33Z)
• To Revise or Not to Revise: Learning to Detect Improvable Claims for Argumentative Writing Support [20.905660642919052]
  We explore the main challenges to identifying argumentative claims in need of specific revisions. We propose a new sampling strategy based on revision distance. We provide evidence that using contextual information and domain knowledge can further improve prediction results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T10:19:54Z)
• Uncovering the Potential of ChatGPT for Discourse Analysis in Dialogue: An Empirical Study [51.079100495163736]
  This paper systematically inspects ChatGPT's performance in two discourse analysis tasks: topic segmentation and discourse parsing. ChatGPT demonstrates proficiency in identifying topic structures in general-domain conversations yet struggles considerably in specific-domain conversations. Our deeper investigation indicates that ChatGPT can give more reasonable topic structures than human annotations but only linearly parses the hierarchical rhetorical structures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-15T07:14:41Z)
• RuArg-2022: Argument Mining Evaluation [69.87149207721035]
  This paper is a report of the organizers on the first competition of argumentation analysis systems dealing with Russian language texts. A corpus containing 9,550 sentences (comments on social media posts) on three topics related to the COVID-19 pandemic was prepared. The system that won the first place in both tasks used the NLI (Natural Language Inference) variant of the BERT architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-18T17:13:37Z)
• Automated Evaluation for Student Argumentative Writing: A Survey [2.9466390764652415]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T07:27:59Z)
• Discourse Analysis for Evaluating Coherence in Video Paragraph Captions [99.37090317971312]
  We are exploring a novel discourse based framework to evaluate the coherence of video paragraphs. Central to our approach is the discourse representation of videos, which helps in modeling coherence of paragraphs conditioned on coherence of videos. Our experiment results have shown that the proposed framework evaluates coherence of video paragraphs significantly better than all the baseline methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-17T04:23:08Z)
• MultiOpEd: A Corpus of Multi-Perspective News Editorials [46.86995662807853]
  MultiOpEd is an open-domain news editorial corpus that supports various tasks pertaining to the argumentation structure in news editorials. We study the problem of perspective summarization in a multi-task learning setting, as a case study. We show that, with the induced tasks as auxiliary tasks, we can improve the quality of the perspective summary generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-04T21:23:22Z)
• Exploring Discourse Structures for Argument Impact Classification [48.909640432326654]
  This paper empirically shows that the discourse relations between two arguments along the context path are essential factors for identifying the persuasive power of an argument. We propose DisCOC to inject and fuse the sentence-level structural information with contextualized features derived from large-scale language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T06:49:19Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.