ABSTRACT

This study investigates the role of automated scoring and feedback in supporting
students’ construction of written scientific arguments while learning about factors that
affect climate change in the classroom. The automated scoring and feedback
technology was integrated into an online module. Students’ written scientific
argumentation occurred when they responded to structured argumentation prompts.
After submitting the open-ended responses, students received scores generated by
a scoring engine and written feedback associated with the scores in real-time. Using
the log data that recorded argumentation scores as well as argument submission
and revisions activities, we answer three research questions. First, how students
behaved after receiving the feedback; second, whether and how students’ revisions
improved their argumentation scores; and third, did item difficulties shift with the
availability of the automated feedback. Results showed that the majority of students
(77%) made revisions after receiving the feedback, and students with higher initial
scores were more likely to revise their responses. Students who revised had
significantly higher final scores than those who did not, and each revision was
associated with an average increase of 0.55 on the final scores. Analysis on item
difficulty shifts showed that written scientific argumentation became easier after
students used the automated feedback.
KEYWORDS: Log data analysis, automated scoring and feedback, scientific
argumentation, climate change
ABSTRACT
This study explores first-year university students’ reasoning as they learn to draw
Lewis structures. We also present a theoretical account of the formal procedure
commonly taught for drawing these structures. Students’ discussions during
problem-solving activities were video recorded and detailed analyses of the
discussions were made through the use of practical epistemology analysis (PEA). Our
results show that the formal procedure was central for drawing Lewis structures, but
its use varied depending on situational aspects. Commonly, the use of individual
steps of the formal procedure was contingent on experiences of chemical structures,
and other information such as the characteristics of the problem given. The analysis
revealed a number of patterns in how students constructed, checked and modified
the structure in relation to the formal procedure and the situational aspects. We
suggest that explicitly teaching the formal procedure as a process of constructing,
Commented [MN1]: ¿What is the rol of automated
scoring and feedback in supporting students construction of
written scientific arguments?
Commented [MN2]: This is the methodology that
indicated which was the instrument (online module); then,
the texts say which is the way of the online interaction
(argumentation prompts or question that the students
aswer); third, the autor shows how is the way to integrated
the class in the real time with the online resource. fourth,
the autor describe what was the categories to classify the
information gived for the experience, in this case, three
questions: First, how students behaved after receiving
the feedback; second, whether and how students’
revisions improved their argumentation scores; and
third, did item difficulties shift with the availability of the
automated feedback.
Commented [MN3]: This part of the text shows the
results of the research that was possitive becaus the
scientific argumentation becamen easier after the students
used the automated feedback. This result respons to
the objetives of the reserch and proof them
Commented [MN4]: In the firt part the text permit to
infer: ¿why the firts year students learn to draw Lewis
structures?
Commented [MN5]: Second, the text shows the
theoretical account that drawing the structure of Lewis.
Commented [MN6]: Third, the texts expose the
methodology in this case, the epistemology analysis. (PEA)
Commented [MN7]: Fourth, the autor shows the results
and observe some limits of the reserch.

checking and modifying might be helpful for students learning to draw Lewis
structures. By doing so, the students may learn to check the accuracy of the
generated structure not only in relation to the octet rule and formal charge, but also
to other experiences that are not explicitly included in the formal procedure. Commented [MN8]: Finally, the autor suggest some
information for the future researches.
KEYWORDS: Chemistry education, problem-solving, Lewis structures