Skip to main content

Reflective Writing Analysis Approach Based on Semantic Concepts: An Evaluation of WordNet Affect Efficiency

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
  • 2341 Accesses

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 1038))

Abstract

Automatic analysis of reflective writing involves identifying indicator strings and using string matching or rule matching processes, which flag sections of a text containing reflective material. The problem with the string-based approach is its inability to deal with knowledge inference from the text, such as the content, context, relevance, clarity, and interconnection, which can be identified by semantic analysis. The semantic analysis depends mainly on mapping the text into stored knowledge sources, such as WordNet, and analyzing the associations in the underlying knowledge source. In this paper, a semantic-based approach for reflective writing analysis is proposed, in which the input text, which is being analyzed, is mapped into semantic concepts. Moreover, a machine learning (ML) approach for reflective writing identification and analysis has been implemented to overcome the limitations of rule execution and keyword matching. The proposed approach addresses the efficiency of using several effective concepts, correlated with effective words that are identified in WordNet-Affect. The input text is classified into reflective or non-reflective categories, after which the input text is classified into various reflective classes, based on the type of the document. Moreover, the concepts in WordNet-Affect are evaluated and analyzed to demonstrate their effects on classification and labeling tasks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Moon, J.: Learning Journals. A Handbook for Academics, Students and Professional (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dewey, J.: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. DC Heath (1933)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Calderhead, J.: Teachers: beliefs and knowledge. In: Berliner, D.C., Calfee, R.C. (eds.). Macmillan, New York (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Thorpe, K.: Reflective learning journals: from concept to practice. Reflective Pract. 5, 327–343 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Vass, E., Littleton, K., Miell, D., Jones, A.: The discourse of collaborative creative writing: peer collaboration as a context for mutual inspiration. Think. Ski. Creat. 3, 192–202 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen, N.-S., Wei, C.-W., Wu, K.-T., Uden, L.: Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners’ reflection levels. Comput. Educ. 52, 283–291 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Xie, Y., Ke, F., Sharma, P.: The effect of peer feedback for blogging on college students’ reflective learning processes. Internet High. Educ. 11, 18–25 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., Elliott, J., Gregson, S., Higgins, S., Lin, M., Miller, J., Newton, D., Robson, S.: Thinking skills frameworks for post-16 learners: an evaluation (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wong, F., Kember, D., Chung, L.: Assessing the level of student reflection from reflective journals. J. Adv. Nurs. 22: 48-57 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sumsion, J., Fleet, A.: Reflection: can we assess it? Should we assess it? Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 21, 121–130 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gibson, A., Kitto, K., Bruza, P.: Towards the discovery of learner metacognition from reflective writing. J. Learn. Anal. 3, 22–36 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ullmann, T.D.: Keywords of written reflection-a comparison between reflective and descriptive datasets. CEUR Workshop Proc. 1465, 83–96 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Strapparava, C., Valitutti, A.: Wordnet affect: an affective extension of WordNet. In: LREC, Lisbon, p. 40 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kember, D.: Determining the level of reflective thinking from students’ written journals using a coding scheme based on the work of Mezirow. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 18, 18–30 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1080/026013799293928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Plack, M.M., Driscoll, M., Marquez, M., Cuppernull, L., Maring, J., Greenberg, L.: Assessing reflective writing on a pediatric clerkship by using a modified Bloom’s taxonomy. Ambul. Pediatr. 7, 285–291 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ullmann, T.D.: Keywords of written reflection - a comparison between reflective and descriptive datasets. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp. 83–96 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  17. El-din, D.M.: Enhancement bag-of-words model for solving the challenges of sentiment analysis, 7, 244–252 (2016). https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2016.070134

  18. Pennebaker, J.W., Chung, C.K.: Expressive writing: connections to physical and mental health. In: Friedman, H.S. (ed.) Oxford Library of Psychology. The Oxford Handbook of Health Psychology, pp. 417–437. Oxford University Press, New York (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ryan, M.: Improving reflective writing in higher education: a social semiotic perspective. Teach. High. Educ. 16, 99–111 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.507311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shum, S.B., Sándor, Á., Goldsmith, R., Wang, X., Bass, R., McWilliams, M.: Reflecting on reflective writing analytics: assessment challenges and iterative evaluation of a prototype tool. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, pp. 213–222. ACM (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Aït-Mokhtar, S., Chanod, J.-P., Roux, C.: Robustness beyond shallowness: incremental deep parsing. Nat. Lang. Eng. 8, 121–144 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen, Y., Yu, B., Zhang, X., Yu, Y.: Topic modeling for evaluating students’ reflective writing. In: Proceedings of Sixth Interantional Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge - LAK 2016, pp. 1–5 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883951

  23. Toutanova, K., Klein, D., Manning, C.D., Singer, Y.: Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology, vol. 1, pp. 173–180. Association for computational Linguistics (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Miller, G.A.: WordNet: a lexical database for English. Commun. ACM 38, 39–41 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lesk, M.: Automatic sense disambiguation using machine readable dictionaries: how to tell a pine cone from an ice cream cone. In: Proceedings of the 5th Annual International Conference on Systems Documentation, pp. 24–26. Citeseer (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Murthy, S.K.: Automatic construction of decision trees from data: a multi-disciplinary survey. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 2, 345–389 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Beattie, D.: Experiments in Induction. In: Hunt, E.B., Marin, J., Stone, P.J. (eds.) Academic Press, New York (1966). xi+247 pp. $9.50 (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., Stone, C.: Classification and Regression Trees (Chapman y Hall, eds.) Monterey, CA, EE. UU. Wadsworth Int. Gr. (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kononenko, I.: Estimating attributes: analysis and extensions of RELIEF. In: European Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 171–182. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Heuboeck, A., Holmes, J., Nesi, H.: The BAWE Corpus Manual (Version III). Publ. por Univ. Coventry (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Walenz, B., Didion, J.: JWNL: Java WordNet Library (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Holmes, G., Donkin, A., Witten, I.H.: Weka: A Machine Learning Workbench (1994)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We would like to acknowledge the contribution of this research, that is funded by Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS) under project code CB19-68SM-01, which has part-funded this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huda Alrashidi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Alrashidi, H., Joy, M. (2020). Reflective Writing Analysis Approach Based on Semantic Concepts: An Evaluation of WordNet Affect Efficiency. In: Bi, Y., Bhatia, R., Kapoor, S. (eds) Intelligent Systems and Applications. IntelliSys 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1038. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29513-4_23

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics