To fully capture the meaning of a sentence, semantic representations should encode aspect, which describes the internal temporal structure of events. In graph-based meaning representation frameworks such as Uniform Meaning Representations (UMR), aspect lets one know how events unfold over time, including distinctions such as states, activities, and completed events. Despite its importance, aspect remains sparsely annotated across semantic meaning representation frameworks. This has, in turn, hindered not only current manual annotation, but also the development of automatic systems capable of predicting aspectual information. In this paper, we introduce a new dataset of English sentences annotated with UMR aspect labels over Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) graphs that lack the feature. We describe the annotation scheme and guidelines used to label eventive predicates according to the UMR aspect lattice, as well as the annotation pipeline used to ensure consistency and quality across annotators through a multi-step adjudication process. To demonstrate the utility of our dataset for future automation, we perform simple baseline experiments using three modeling approaches. Our results establish initial benchmarks for automatic UMR aspect prediction and provide a foundation for integrating aspect into semantic meaning representations more broadly.

We present preliminary evidence on the impact of a NLP-based writing feedback tool, Write-On with Cambi! on students’ argumentative writing. Students were randomly assigned to receive access to the tool or not, and their essay scores were compared across three rubric dimensions; estimated effect sizes (Cohen’s d) ranged from 0.25 to 0.26 (with notable variation in the average treatment effect across classrooms). To characterize and compare the groups’ writing processes, we implemented an algorithm that classified each revision as Appended (new text added to the end), Surface-level (minor within-text corrections to conventions), or Substantive (larger within-text changes or additions). We interpret within-text edits (Surface-level or Substantive) as potential markers of metacognitive engagement in revision, and note that these within-text edits are more common in students who had access to the tool. Together, these pilot analyses serve as a first step in testing the tool’s theory of action.