Identifying Thesis and Conclusion Statements in Student Essays to Scaffold Peer Review

  • Mohammad Hassan Falakmasir
  • Kevin D. Ashley
  • Christian D. Schunn
  • Diane J. Litman
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8474)


Peer-reviewing is a recommended instructional technique to encourage good writing. Peer reviewers, however, may fail to identify key elements of an essay, such as thesis and conclusion statements, especially in high school writing. Our system identifies thesis and conclusion statements, or their absence, in students’ essays in order to scaffold reviewer reflection. We showed that computational linguistics and interactive machine learning have the potential to facilitate peer-review processes.


Peer-review high school writing instruction discourse analysis natural language processing interactive machine learning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: Writing, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sadler, P., Good, E.: The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment 11(1), 1–31 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wooley, R., Was, C., Schunn, C., Dalton, D.: The effects of feedback elaboration on the giver of feedback. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cho, K., Schunn, C.: Developing writing skills through students giving instructional explanations. In: Stein, Kucan (eds.) Instructional Explanations in the Disciplines. Springer, NY (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldin, I.M., Ashley, K., Schunn, C.D.: Redesigning Educational Peer Review Interactions Using Computer Tools: An Introduction. Journal of Writing Research 4(2), 111–119 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hansen, J., Liu, J.: Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT J. 59(1), 31–38 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Durst, R.: Cognitive and Linguistic Demands of Analytic Writing. Research in the Teaching of English 21(4), 347–376 (1987)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Assessment of Educational Progress, Writing Framework for the, National Assessment of Educational Progress (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shermis, M.D., Burstein, J., Higgins, D., Zechner, K.: Automated essay scoring: Writing assessment and instruction. International Encyclopedia of Education 4, 20–26 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burstein, J., Marcu, D.: A machine learning approach for identification thesis and conclusion statements in student essays. Computers and the Humanities 37(4), 455–467 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burstein, J., Marcu, D., Knight, K.: Finding the WRITE stuff: Automatic identification of discourse structure in student essays. IEEE Intelligent Systems 18(1), 32–39 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roscoe, R.D., McNamara, D.S.: Writing pal: Feasibility of an intelligent writing strategy tutor in the high school classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology 105(4), 1010 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Crossley, S.A., McNamara, D.S.: Understanding expert ratings of essay quality: Coh-Metrix analyses of first and second language writing. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning 21(2), 170–191 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cho, K., Schunn, C.D.: Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education 48(3), 409–426 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fails, J.A., Olsen Jr, D.R.: Interactive machine learning. In: Proceedings 8th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 39–45 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    De La Paz, S., Graham, S.: Explicit teaching strategies, skills and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology 94(4), 687–698 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Durst, R., Laine, C., Schultz, L.M., Vilter, W.: Appealing Texts The Persuasive Writing of High School Students. Written Communication 7(2), 232–255 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fleiss, J.L., Cohen, J., Everitt, B.S.: Large sample standard errors of kappa and weighted kappa. Psychological Bulletin 72(5), 323 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marcu, D.: Discourse trees are good indicators of importance in text. Advances in Automatic Text Summarization, 123–136 (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kakwani, N.: On a class of poverty measures. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 437–446 (1980)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mierswa, I., Wurst, M., Klinkenberg, R., Scholz, M., Euler, T.: Yale: Rapid prototyping for complex data mining tasks. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 935–940 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Hassan Falakmasir
    • 1
  • Kevin D. Ashley
    • 1
  • Christian D. Schunn
    • 1
  • Diane J. Litman
    • 1
  1. 1.Learning Research and Development Center, Intelligent Systems ProgramUniversity of PittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations