A School Student Essay Corpus for Analyzing Interactions of Argumentative Structure and Quality

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.02529v1
• Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 07:31:53 GMT
• Title: A School Student Essay Corpus for Analyzing Interactions of Argumentative Structure and Quality
• Authors: Maja Stahl, Nadine Michel, Sebastian Kilsbach, Julian Schmidtke, Sara Rezat, Henning Wachsmuth,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 12.187586364960758
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Learning argumentative writing is challenging. Besides writing fundamentals such as syntax and grammar, learners must select and arrange argument components meaningfully to create high-quality essays. To support argumentative writing computationally, one step is to mine the argumentative structure. When combined with automatic essay scoring, interactions of the argumentative structure and quality scores can be exploited for comprehensive writing support. Although studies have shown the usefulness of using information about the argumentative structure for essay scoring, no argument mining corpus with ground-truth essay quality annotations has been published yet. Moreover, none of the existing corpora contain essays written by school students specifically. To fill this research gap, 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, thereby laying the ground for quality-oriented argumentative writing support.

Related papers

• Mind the Gap: Automated Corpus Creation for Enthymeme Detection and Reconstruction in Learner Arguments [15.184644294253848]
  This paper introduces two new tasks for learner arguments: to identify gaps in arguments and to fill such gaps. Based on the ICLEv3 corpus of argumentative learner essays, we create 40,089 argument instances for enthymeme detection and reconstruction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T12:33:40Z)
• 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)
• AI, write an essay for me: A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays [66.36541161082856]
  ChatGPT and similar generative AI models have attracted hundreds of millions of users. This study compares human-written versus ChatGPT-generated argumentative student essays.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-24T12:58:28Z)
• ArguGPT: evaluating, understanding and identifying argumentative essays generated by GPT models [9.483206389157509]
  We first present ArguGPT, a balanced corpus of 4,038 argumentative essays generated by 7 GPT models. We then hire English instructors to distinguish machine essays from human ones. Results show that when first exposed to machine-generated essays, the instructors only have an accuracy of 61% in detecting them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T01:50:26Z)
• PropSegmEnt: A Large-Scale Corpus for Proposition-Level Segmentation and Entailment Recognition [63.51569687229681]
  We argue for the need to recognize the textual entailment relation of each proposition in a sentence individually. We propose PropSegmEnt, a corpus of over 45K propositions annotated by expert human raters. Our dataset structure resembles the tasks of (1) segmenting sentences within a document to the set of propositions, and (2) classifying the entailment relation of each proposition with respect to a different yet topically-aligned document.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-21T04:03:33Z)
• 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)
• Persua: A Visual Interactive System to Enhance the Persuasiveness of Arguments in Online Discussion [52.49981085431061]
  Enhancing people's ability to write persuasive arguments could contribute to the effectiveness and civility in online communication. We derived four design goals for a tool that helps users improve the persuasiveness of arguments in online discussions. Persua is an interactive visual system that provides example-based guidance on persuasive strategies to enhance the persuasiveness of arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-16T08:07:53Z)
• 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)
• Generating Informative Conclusions for Argumentative Texts [32.3103908466811]
  The purpose of an argumentative text is to support a certain conclusion. An explicit conclusion makes for a good candidate summary of an argumentative text. This is especially true if the conclusion is informative, emphasizing specific concepts from the text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T10:35:59Z)
• 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)
• An Exploratory Study of Argumentative Writing by Young Students: A Transformer-based Approach [10.541633715913514]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-17T13:55:31Z)

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.