Automated recognition of thinking orders in secondary school student writings

References

• Balfaqeeh, M., & Hassan, A. (2014). Broadening the exposure of engineering students to the higher order thinking skills. In Pixel (Ed.), Conference proceedings of ICT for language learning (pp. 129–133).
   Google Scholar
• Berland, M., Davis, D., & Smith, C. P. (2015). AMOEBA: Designing for collaboration in computer science classrooms through live learning analytics. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 425–447. doi:10.1007/s11412-015-9217-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. London, WI: Longmans, Green.
   Google Scholar
• Brierton, S., Wilson, E., Kistler, M., Flowers, J., & Jones, D. (2016). A comparison of higher order thinking skills demonstrated in synchronous and asynchronous online college discussion posts. NACTA Journal, 60(1), 14.
   Google Scholar
• Carless, D. (2013). Sustainable feedback and the development of student self-evaluative capacities. In S. Merry, M. Price, D. Carless, & M. Taras (Eds.), Reconceptualising feedback in higher education: Developing dialogue with students (pp. 113–122).  Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Che, W., Li, Z., & Liu, T. (2010). LTP: A Chinese language technology platform. In C.-R. Huang & D. Jurafsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on computational linguistics: Demonstrations (pp. 13–16). Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Dascalu, M. (2014). Analyzing discourse and text complexity for learning and collaborating. In Studies in computational intelligence (Vol. 534). Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03419-5.
   Google Scholar
• Duval, E. (2011, February). Attention please!: Learning analytics for visualization and recommendation. In G. Conole & D. Gasevic (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 9–17). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Education Bureau. (2007). Liberal studies curriculum and assessment guide.  Hong Kong S.A.R.
   Google Scholar
• Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2008). Automatic coding of dialogue acts in collaboration protocols. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4), 447–470. doi:10.1007/s11412-008-9052-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flower, L, & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.
   Google Scholar
• Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64–71. doi:10.1007/s11528-014-0822-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haudek, K. C., Prevost, L. B., Moscarella, R. A., Merrill, J., & Urban-Lurain, M. (2012). What are they thinking? Automated analysis of student writing about acid–base chemistry in introductory biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11(3), 283–293. doi:10.1187/cbe.11-08-0084
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25(4), 517–572. doi:10.1177/0011000097254001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, X., Ip, J., Sadaful, K., Lui, G., & Chu, S. (2016). Wikiglass: A learning analytic tool for visualizing collaborative wikis of secondary school students. In  S. Dawson, H. Drachsler, & C. Rosé (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp. 550–551). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., & Jaspers, J. (2007). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? Computers & Education, 49(4), 1037–1065. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joksimović, S., Zouaq, A., Kovanović, V., Gašević, D., Jovanović, J., & Hatala, M. (2015, March). What do cMOOC participants talk about in social media? Proceedings of the International Learning Analytics and Knowledge conference, Poughkeepsie, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Khan, I., & Pardo, A. (2016, April). Data2U: Scalable real time student feedback in active learning environments. In  S. Dawson, H. Drachsler, & C. Rosé (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp. 249–253). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Knoch, U. (2011). Rating scales for diagnostic assessment of writing: What should they look like and where should the criteria come from? Assessing Writing, 16(2), 81–96. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2011.02.003
   Google Scholar
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, P. L., Straker, H. O., Schlumpf, K. S., & Plack, M. M. (2014). Learning partnership: Students and faculty learning together to facilitate reflection and higher order thinking in a blended course. Online Learning, 18(4), n4.
   Google Scholar
• McLaren, B. M., Scheuer, O., & Mikšátko, J. (2010). Supporting collaborative learning and e-discussions using artificial intelligence techniques. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 20(1), 1–46.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). The linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27, 57–86. doi:10.1177/0741088309351547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Melero, J, Hernández‐Leo, D, Sun, J, Santos, P, & Blat, J. (2015). How was the activity? a visualization support for a case of location‐based learning design. British Journal of Educational Technology. 46(2), 317–329.
   Google Scholar
• Michinov, N., & Primois, C. (2005). Improving productivity and creativity in online groups through social comparison process: New evidence for asynchronous electronic brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(1), 11–28. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, T. (1997). Machine learning. Columbus, OH: McGraw Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Pincay, J., & Ochoa, X. (2013). Automatic classification of answers to discussion forums according to the cognitive domain of bloom’s taxonomy using text mining and a Bayesian classifier. In  J. Herrington et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (pp. 626–634). Victoria, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Plack, M. M., Driscoll, M., Marquez, M., Cuppernull, L., Maring, J., & Greenberg, L. (2007). Assessing reflective writing on a pediatric clerkship by using a modified Bloom’s taxonomy. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 7(4), 285–291. doi:10.1016/j.ambp.2007.04.006
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rosé, C., Wang, Y.-C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2008). Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(3), 237–271. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9034-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosé, C. P., Roque, A., Bhembe, D., & Vanlehn, K. (2003). A hybrid text classification approach for analysis of student essays. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 03 workshop on building educational applications using natural language processing (Vol. 2, pp. 68–75). Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Seaman, M. (2011). Bloom’s taxonomy: Its evolution. Revision, and use in the field of education. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 13(1/2), 29–43.
   Google Scholar
• Shum, S. B., Sándor, Á., Goldsmith, R., Wang, X., Bass, R., & McWilliams, M. (2016, April). Reflecting on reflective writing analytics: Assessment challenges and iterative evaluation of a prototype tool. In S. Dawson, H. Drachsler, & C. Rosé (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp. 213–222). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Tan, J. P. L., Yang, S., Koh, E., & Jonathan, C. (2016, April). Fostering 21st century literacies through a collaborative critical reading and learning analytics environment: User-perceived benefits and problematics. In  S. Dawson, H. Drachsler, & C. Rosé (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp. 430–434). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Brekelmans, M. (2014). Supporting teachers in guiding collaborating students: Effects of learning analytics in CSCL. Computers & Education, 79, 28–39. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Brekelmans, M. (2015a). Teacher regulation of cognitive activities during student collaboration: Effects of learning analytics. Computers & Education, 90, 80–94. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Brekelmans, M. (2015b). Teacher regulation of multiple computer-supported collaborating groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 233–242. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. doi:10.1007/BF02504682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, B., & Larusson, J. A. (2015). Chapter 8: Identifying points for pedagogical intervention based on student writing: two case studies for the “points of originality”. In J. A. Larusson & B. White (Eds.), Learning Analytics: From Research to Practice (pp. 157–190). Springer.
   Google Scholar