Although effective revision is the crucial component of writing instruction, few automated writing evaluation (AWE) systems specifically focus on the quality of the revisions students undertake. In this study we investigate the use of a large language model (GPT-4) with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting for assessing the quality of young students’ essay revisions aligned with the automated feedback messages they received. Results indicate that GPT-4 has significant potential for evaluating revision quality, particularly when detailed rubrics are included that describe common revision patterns shown by young writers. However, the addition of CoT prompting did not significantly improve performance. Further examination of GPT-4’s scoring performance across various levels of student writing proficiency revealed variable agreement with human ratings. The implications for improving AWE systems focusing on young students are discussed.

Generating free-text rationales is among the emergent capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). These rationales have been found to enhance LLM performance across various NLP tasks. Recently, there has been growing interest in using these rationales to provide insights for various important downstream tasks. In this paper, we analyze generated free-text rationales in tasks with subjective answers, emphasizing the importance of rationalization in such scenarios. We focus on pairwise argument ranking, a highly subjective task with significant potential for real-world applications, such as debate assistance. We evaluate the persuasiveness of rationales generated by nine LLMs to support their subjective choices. Our findings suggest that open-source LLMs, particularly Llama2-70B-chat, are capable of providing highly persuasive rationalizations, surpassing even GPT models. Additionally, our experiments demonstrate that the persuasiveness of the generated rationales can be enhanced by guiding their persuasive elements through prompting or self-refinement techniques.

Human evaluation remains the gold standard for assessing abstractive summarization. However, current practices often prioritize constructing evaluation guidelines for fluency, coherence, and factual accuracy, overlooking other critical dimensions. In this paper, we investigate argument coverage in abstractive summarization by focusing on long legal opinions, where summaries must effectively encapsulate the document’s argumentative nature. We introduce a set of human-evaluation guidelines to evaluate generated summaries based on argumentative coverage. These guidelines enable us to assess three distinct summarization models, studying the influence of including argument roles in summarization. Furthermore, we utilize these evaluation scores to benchmark automatic summarization metrics against argument coverage, providing insights into the effectiveness of automated evaluation methods.

Knowledge retrieval is one of the major challenges in building a knowledge-grounded dialogue system. A common method is to use a neural retriever with a distributed approximate nearest-neighbor database to quickly find the relevant knowledge sentences. In this work, we propose an approach that utilizes topic modeling on the knowledge base to further improve retrieval accuracy and as a result, improve response generation. Additionally, we experiment with a large language model (LLM), ChatGPT, to take advantage of the improved retrieval performance to further improve the generation results. Experimental results on two datasets show that our approach can increase retrieval and generation performance. The results also indicate that ChatGPT is a better response generator for knowledge-grounded dialogue when relevant knowledge is provided.

This paper introduces ReflectSumm, a novel summarization dataset specifically designed for summarizing students’ reflective writing. The goal of ReflectSumm is to facilitate developing and evaluating novel summarization techniques tailored to real-world scenarios with little training data, with potential implications in the opinion summarization domain in general and the educational domain in particular. The dataset encompasses a diverse range of summarization tasks and includes comprehensive metadata, enabling the exploration of various research questions and supporting different applications. To showcase its utility, we conducted extensive evaluations using multiple state-of-the-art baselines. The results provide benchmarks for facilitating further research in this area.

This paper presents an overview of the ImageArg shared task, the first multimodal Argument Mining shared task co-located with the 10th Workshop on Argument Mining at EMNLP 2023. The shared task comprises two classification subtasks - (1) Subtask-A: Argument Stance Classification; (2) Subtask-B: Image Persuasiveness Classification. The former determines the stance of a tweet containing an image and a piece of text toward a controversial topic (e.g., gun control and abortion). The latter determines whether the image makes the tweet text more persuasive. The shared task received 31 submissions for Subtask-A and 21 submissions for Subtask-B from 9 different teams across 6 countries. The top submission in Subtask-A achieved an F1-score of 0.8647 while the best submission in Subtask-B achieved an F1-score of 0.5561.

The ability to revise in response to feedback is critical to students’ writing success. In the case of argument writing in specific, identifying whether an argument revision (AR) is successful or not is a complex problem because AR quality is dependent on the overall content of an argument. For example, adding the same evidence sentence could strengthen or weaken existing claims in different argument contexts (ACs). To address this issue we developed Chain-of-Thought prompts to facilitate ChatGPT-generated ACs for AR quality predictions. The experiments on two corpora, our annotated elementary essays and existing college essays benchmark, demonstrate the superiority of the proposed ACs over baselines.

We develop models to classify desirable evidence and desirable reasoning revisions in student argumentative writing. We explore two ways to improve classifier performance – using the essay context of the revision, and using the feedback students received before the revision. We perform both intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation for each of our models and report a qualitative analysis. Our results show that while a model using feedback information improves over a baseline model, models utilizing context - either alone or with feedback - are the most successful in identifying desirable revisions.

We propose a simple approach for the abstractive summarization of long legal opinions that takes into account the argument structure of the document. Legal opinions often contain complex and nuanced argumentation, making it challenging to generate a concise summary that accurately captures the main points of the legal opinion. Our approach involves using argument role information to generate multiple candidate summaries, then reranking these candidates based on alignment with the document’s argument structure. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on a dataset of long legal opinions and show that it outperforms several strong baselines.

The growing interest in developing corpora of persuasive texts has promoted applications in automated systems, e.g., debating and essay scoring systems; however, there is little prior work mining image persuasiveness from an argumentative perspective. To expand persuasiveness mining into a multi-modal realm, we present a multi-modal dataset, ImageArg, consisting of annotations of image persuasiveness in tweets. The annotations are based on a persuasion taxonomy we developed to explore image functionalities and the means of persuasion. We benchmark image persuasiveness tasks on ImageArg using widely-used multi-modal learning methods. The experimental results show that our dataset offers a useful resource for this rich and challenging topic, and there is ample room for modeling improvement.

A challenging task when generating summaries of legal documents is the ability to address their argumentative nature. We introduce a simple technique to capture the argumentative structure of legal documents by integrating argument role labeling into the summarization process. Experiments with pretrained language models show that our proposed approach improves performance over strong baselines.

Though many algorithms can be used to automatically summarize legal case decisions, most fail to incorporate domain knowledge about how important sentences in a legal decision relate to a representation of its document structure. For example, analysis of a legal case sum- marization dataset demonstrates that sentences serving different types of argumentative roles in the decision appear in different sections of the document. In this work, we propose an unsupervised graph-based ranking model that uses a reweighting algorithm to exploit properties of the document structure of legal case decisions. We also explore the impact of using different methods to compute the document structure. Results on the Canadian Legal Case Law dataset show that our proposed method outperforms several strong baselines.

To build a goal-oriented dialogue system that can generate responses given a knowledge base, identifying the relevant pieces of information to be grounded in is vital. When the number of documents in the knowledge base is large, retrieval approaches are typically used to identify the top relevant documents. However, most prior work simply uses an entire dialogue history to guide retrieval, rather than exploiting a dialogue’s topical structure. In this work, we examine the importance of building the proper contextualized dialogue history when document-level topic shifts are present. Our results suggest that excluding irrelevant turns from the dialogue history (e.g., excluding turns not grounded in the same document as the current turn) leads to better retrieval results. We also propose a cascading approach utilizing the topical nature of a knowledge-grounded conversation to further manipulate the dialogue history used as input to the retrieval models.

Speakers build rapport in the process of aligning conversational behaviors with each other. Rapport engendered with a teachable agent while instructing domain material has been shown to promote learning. Past work on lexical alignment in the field of education suffers from limitations in both the measures used to quantify alignment and the types of interactions in which alignment with agents has been studied. In this paper, we apply alignment measures based on a data-driven notion of shared expressions (possibly composed of multiple words) and compare alignment in one-on-one human-robot (H-R) interactions with the H-R portions of collaborative human-human-robot (H-H-R) interactions. We find that students in the H-R setting align with a teachable robot more than in the H-H-R setting and that the relationship between lexical alignment and rapport is more complex than what is predicted by previous theoretical and empirical work.

Argument role labeling is a fundamental task in Argument Mining research. However, such research often suffers from a lack of large-scale datasets labeled for argument roles such as evidence, which is crucial for neural model training. While large pretrained language models have somewhat alleviated the need for massive manually labeled datasets, how much these models can further benefit from self-training techniques hasn’t been widely explored in the literature in general and in Argument Mining specifically. In this work, we focus on self-trained language models (particularly BERT) for evidence detection. We provide a thorough investigation on how to utilize pseudo labels effectively in the self-training scheme. We also assess whether adding pseudo labels from an out-of-domain source can be beneficial. Experiments on sentence level evidence detection show that self-training can complement pretrained language models to provide performance improvements.

We utilize multi-task learning to improve argument mining in persuasive online discussions, in which both micro-level and macro-level argumentation must be taken into consideration. Our models learn to identify argument components and the relations between them at the same time. We also tackle the low-precision which arises from imbalanced relation data by experimenting with SMOTE and XGBoost. Our approaches improve over baselines that use the same pre-trained language model but process the argument component task and two relation tasks separately. Furthermore, our results suggest that the tasks to be incorporated into multi-task learning should be taken into consideration as using all relevant tasks does not always lead to the best performance.

Human essay grading is a laborious task that can consume much time and effort. Automated Essay Scoring (AES) has thus been proposed as a fast and effective solution to the problem of grading student writing at scale. However, because AES typically uses supervised machine learning, a human-graded essay corpus is still required to train the AES model. Unfortunately, such a graded corpus often does not exist, so creating a corpus for machine learning can also be a laborious task. This paper presents an investigation of replacing the use of human-labeled essay grades when training an AES system with two automatically available but weaker signals of essay quality: word count and topic distribution similarity. Experiments using two source-based essay scoring (evidence score) corpora show that while weak supervision does not yield a competitive result when training a neural source-based AES model, it can be used to successfully extract Topical Components (TCs) from a source text, which are required by a supervised feature-based AES model. In particular, results show that feature-based AES performance is comparable with either automatically or manually constructed TCs.

This paper explores the effect of using multitask learning for abstractive summarization in the context of small training corpora. In particular, we incorporate four different tasks (extractive summarization, language modeling, concept detection, and paraphrase detection) both individually and in combination, with the goal of enhancing the target task of abstractive summarization via multitask learning. We show that for many task combinations, a model trained in a multitask setting outperforms a model trained only for abstractive summarization, with no additional summarization data introduced. Additionally, we do a comprehensive search and find that certain tasks (e.g. paraphrase detection) consistently benefit abstractive summarization, not only when combined with other tasks but also when using different architectures and training corpora.

This paper explores three simple data manipulation techniques (synthesis, augmentation, curriculum) for improving abstractive summarization models without the need for any additional data. We introduce a method of data synthesis with paraphrasing, a data augmentation technique with sample mixing, and curriculum learning with two new difficulty metrics based on specificity and abstractiveness. We conduct experiments to show that these three techniques can help improve abstractive summarization across two summarization models and two different small datasets. Furthermore, we show that these techniques can improve performance when applied in isolation and when combined.

While automated essay scoring (AES) can reliably grade essays at scale, automated writing evaluation (AWE) additionally provides formative feedback to guide essay revision. However, a neural AES typically does not provide useful feature representations for supporting AWE. This paper presents a method for linking AWE and neural AES, by extracting Topical Components (TCs) representing evidence from a source text using the intermediate output of attention layers. We evaluate performance using a feature-based AES requiring TCs. Results show that performance is comparable whether using automatically or manually constructed TCs for 1) representing essays as rubric-based features, 2) grading essays.

Automated writing evaluation systems can improve students’ writing insofar as students attend to the feedback provided and revise their essay drafts in ways aligned with such feedback. Existing research on revision of argumentative writing in such systems, however, has focused on the types of revisions students make (e.g., surface vs. content) rather than the extent to which revisions actually respond to the feedback provided and improve the essay. We introduce an annotation scheme to capture the nature of sentence-level revisions of evidence use and reasoning (the ‘RER’ scheme) and apply it to 5th- and 6th-grade students’ argumentative essays. We show that reliable manual annotation can be achieved and that revision annotations correlate with a holistic assessment of essay improvement in line with the feedback provided. Furthermore, we explore the feasibility of automatically classifying revisions according to our scheme.

Argument mining systems often consider contextual information, i.e. information outside of an argumentative discourse unit, when trained to accomplish tasks such as argument component identification, classification, and relation extraction. However, prior work has not carefully analyzed the utility of different contextual properties in context-aware models. In this work, we show how two different types of contextual information, local discourse context and speaker context, can be incorporated into a computational model for classifying argument components in multi-party classroom discussions. We find that both context types can improve performance, although the improvements are dependent on context size and position.

Teaching collaborative argumentation is an advanced skill that many K-12 teachers struggle to develop. To address this, we have developed Discussion Tracker, a classroom discussion analytics system based on novel algorithms for classifying argument moves, specificity, and collaboration. Results from a classroom deployment indicate that teachers found the analytics useful, and that the underlying classifiers perform with moderate to substantial agreement with humans.

Although NLP research on argument mining has advanced considerably in recent years, most studies draw on corpora of asynchronous and written texts, often produced by individuals. Few published corpora of synchronous, multi-party argumentation are available. The Discussion Tracker corpus, collected in high school English classes, is an annotated dataset of transcripts of spoken, multi-party argumentation. The corpus consists of 29 multi-party discussions of English literature transcribed from 985 minutes of audio. The transcripts were annotated for three dimensions of collaborative argumentation: argument moves (claims, evidence, and explanations), specificity (low, medium, high) and collaboration (e.g., extensions of and disagreements about others’ ideas). In addition to providing descriptive statistics on the corpus, we provide performance benchmarks and associated code for predicting each dimension separately, illustrate the use of the multiple annotations in the corpus to improve performance via multi-task learning, and finally discuss other ways the corpus might be used to further NLP research.

Classroom discussions in English Language Arts have a positive effect on students’ reading, writing and reasoning skills. Although prior work has largely focused on teacher talk and student-teacher interactions, we focus on three theoretically-motivated aspects of high-quality student talk: argumentation, specificity, and knowledge domain. We introduce an annotation scheme, then show that the scheme can be used to produce reliable annotations and that the annotations are predictive of discussion quality. We also highlight opportunities provided by our scheme for education and natural language processing research.

Studies of writing revisions rarely focus on revision quality. To address this issue, we introduce a corpus of between-draft revisions of student argumentative essays, annotated as to whether each revision improves essay quality. We demonstrate a potential usage of our annotations by developing a machine learning model to predict revision improvement. With the goal of expanding training data, we also extract revisions from a dataset edited by expert proofreaders. Our results indicate that blending expert and non-expert revisions increases model performance, with expert data particularly important for predicting low-quality revisions.

This paper presents an investigation of using a co-attention based neural network for source-dependent essay scoring. We use a co-attention mechanism to help the model learn the importance of each part of the essay more accurately. Also, this paper shows that the co-attention based neural network model provides reliable score prediction of source-dependent responses. We evaluate our model on two source-dependent response corpora. Results show that our model outperforms the baseline on both corpora. We also show that the attention of the model is similar to the expert opinions with examples.

This paper proposes a new weighting method for extending a dyad-level measure of convergence to multi-party dialogues by considering group dynamics instead of simply averaging. Experiments indicate the usefulness of the proposed weighted measure and also show that in general a proper weighting of the dyad-level measures performs better than non-weighted averaging in multiple tasks.

This paper focuses on argument component classification for transcribed spoken classroom discussions, with the goal of automatically classifying student utterances into claims, evidence, and warrants. We show that an existing method for argument component classification developed for another educationally-oriented domain performs poorly on our dataset. We then show that feature sets from prior work on argument mining for student essays and online dialogues can be used to improve performance considerably. We also provide a comparison between convolutional neural networks and recurrent neural networks when trained under different conditions to classify argument components in classroom discussions. While neural network models are not always able to outperform a logistic regression model, we were able to gain some useful insights: convolutional networks are more robust than recurrent networks both at the character and at the word level, and specificity information can help boost performance in multi-task training.

This paper presents ArgRewrite, a corpus of between-draft revisions of argumentative essays. Drafts are manually aligned at the sentence level, and the writer’s purpose for each revision is annotated with categories analogous to those used in argument mining and discourse analysis. The corpus should enable advanced research in writing comparison and revision analysis, as demonstrated via our own studies of student revision behavior and of automatic revision purpose prediction.

High quality classroom discussion is important to student development, enhancing abilities to express claims, reason about other students’ claims, and retain information for longer periods of time. Previous small-scale studies have shown that one indicator of classroom discussion quality is specificity. In this paper we tackle the problem of predicting specificity for classroom discussions. We propose several methods and feature sets capable of outperforming the state of the art in specificity prediction. Additionally, we provide a set of meaningful, interpretable features that can be used to analyze classroom discussions at a pedagogical level.

Teaching large classes remains a great challenge, primarily because it is difficult to attend to all the student needs in a timely manner. Automatic text summarization systems can be leveraged to summarize the student feedback, submitted immediately after each lecture, but it is left to be discovered what makes a good summary for student responses. In this work we explore a new methodology that effectively extracts summary phrases from the student responses. Each phrase is tagged with the number of students who raise the issue. The phrases are evaluated along two dimensions: with respect to text content, they should be informative and well-formed, measured by the ROUGE metric; additionally, they shall attend to the most pressing student needs, measured by a newly proposed metric. This work is enabled by a phrase-based annotation and highlighting scheme, which is new to the summarization task. The phrase-based framework allows us to summarize the student responses into a set of bullet points and present to the instructor promptly.

Penn Discourse Treebank (PDTB)-style annotation focuses on labeling local discourse relations between text spans and typically ignores larger discourse contexts. In this paper we propose two approaches to infer discourse relations in a paragraph-level context from annotated PDTB labels. We investigate the utility of inferring such discourse information using the task of revision classification. Experimental results demonstrate that the inferred information can significantly improve classification performance compared to baselines, not only when PDTB annotation comes from humans but also from automatic parsers.

We present a corpus of spoken dialogues between students and an adaptive Wizard-of-Oz tutoring system, in which student uncertainty was manually annotated in real-time. We detail the corpus contents, including speech files, transcripts, annotations, and log files, and we discuss possible future uses by the computational linguistics community as a novel resource for studying naturally occurring user affect and adaptation in complex spoken dialogue systems.