Cited by 29Natural Language Processing TechniquesSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningWriting and Handwriting Education

Towards Evaluating Narrative Quality In Student Writing

Open access
Somasundaran, Swapna, Flor, Michael, Chodorow, Martin, Molloy, Hillary, Gyawali, Binod, McCulla, Laura·2018·Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Abstract

This work lays the foundation for automated assessments of narrative quality in student writing. We first manually score essays for narrative-relevant traits and sub-traits, and measure inter-annotator agreement. We then explore linguistic features that are indicative of good narrative writing and use them to build an automated scoring system. Experiments show that our features are more effective in scoring specific aspects of narrative quality than a state-of-the-art feature set.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/tacl_a_00007

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Somasundaran, S., Flor, M., Chodorow, M., Molloy, H., Gyawali, B., & McCulla, L.
Affiliations
  • Educational Testing Service (US)
  • The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
Corresponding author
  • Somasundaran, Swapna
  • Flor, Michael
  • Chodorow, Martin
  • Molloy, Hillary
  • Gyawali, Binod
  • McCulla, Laura
Venue
Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2018-12
Volume
6
Pages
91-106
ISSN
2307-387X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2787991549
Cited by
29
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
Keywords
narrative quality, student writing, automated essay scoring, linguistic features, inter-annotator agreement, writing quality assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review