What Are They Thinking? Automated Analysis of Student Writing about Acid–Base Chemistry in Introductory Biology

Students' writing can provide better insight into their thinking than can multiple-choice questions. However, resource constraints often prevent faculty from using writing assessments in large undergraduate science courses. We investigated the use of computer software to analyze student writing and to uncover student ideas about chemistry in an introductory biology course. Students were asked to predict acid-base behavior of biological functional groups and to explain their answers. Student explanations were rated by two independent raters. Responses were also analyzed using SPSS Text Analysis for Surveys and a custom library of science-related terms and lexical categories relevant to the assessment item. These analyses revealed conceptual connections made by students, student difficulties explaining these topics, and the heterogeneity of student ideas. We validated the lexical analysis by correlating student interviews with the lexical analysis. We used discriminant analysis to create classification functions that identified seven key lexical categories that predict expert scoring (interrater reliability with experts = 0.899). This study suggests that computerized lexical analysis may be useful for automatically categorizing large numbers of student open-ended responses. Lexical analysis provides instructors unique insights into student thinking and a whole-class perspective that are difficult to obtain from multiple-choice questions or reading individual responses.     

Exploring undergraduates' understanding of photosynthesis using diagnostic question clusters

We present a diagnostic question cluster (DQC) that assesses undergraduates' thinking about photosynthesis. This assessment tool is not designed to identify individual misconceptions. Rather, it is focused on students' abilities to apply basic concepts about photosynthesis by reasoning with a coordinated set of practices based on a few scientific principles: conservation of matter, conservation of energy, and the hierarchical nature of biological systems. Data on students' responses to the cluster items and uses of some of the questions in multiple-choice, multiple-true/false, and essay formats are compared. A cross-over study indicates that the multiple-true/false format shows promise as a machine-gradable format that identifies students who have a mixture of accurate and inaccurate ideas. In addition, interviews with students about their choices on three multiple-choice questions reveal the fragility of students' understanding. Collectively, the data show that many undergraduates lack both a basic understanding of the role of photosynthesis in plant metabolism and the ability to reason with scientific principles when learning new content. Implications for instruction are discussed.     

Time Scales and Academic Excellence

Abstract

While not representative of all students, those who demonstrate a sense of entitlement demand a great deal of instructors' time and energy. Our article places student entitlement in its social context, with specific attention to the prevalence of the consumer mentality, grade inflation, and the self-esteem of the student generation. We then outline several strategies for dealing with entitlement behavior. We suggest that greater clarity in standards and assessment, combined with specific requirements guiding teacher-student interactions and general efforts to resocialize students and faculty, will help to curb these behaviors.     

Generic tendencies in majority and non‐majority supreme court opinions: The case of justice Douglas

Using a sample of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas' Supreme Court opinons as the data base, this study investigated the question of whether majority or non‐majority status constitutes a variable sufficiently strong to predict the rhetorical quality of the opinion. The three traditional schools of legal philosophy, Natural Law, Legal Positivism, and Legal Realism, provided the basis of three hypothetical rhetorical genres which were found to be present in statistically similar frequencies in all opinion types. These findings (1) call into question the conventional wisdom that majority and dissenting opinions represent different rhetorical sub‐species, and (2) suggest that a more fruitful avenue of analysis looks to the generic architechtonics of Supreme Court opinions rather than to the relatively more superficial dimension of stylistics.