skip to main content
10.1145/2460296.2460307acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslakConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Analysis of collaborative writing processes using revision maps and probabilistic topic models

Published:08 April 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

The use of cloud computing writing tools, such as Google Docs, by students to write collaboratively provides unprecedented data about the progress of writing. This data can be exploited to gain insights on how learners' collaborative activities, ideas and concepts are developed during the process of writing. Ultimately, it can also be used to provide support to improve the quality of the written documents and the writing skills of learners involved. In this paper, we propose three visualisation approaches and their underlying techniques for analysing writing processes used in a document written by a group of authors: (1) the revision map, which summarises the text edits made at the paragraph level, over the time of writing. (2) the topic evolution chart, which uses probabilistic topic models, especially Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) and its extension, DiffLDA, to extract topics and follow their evolution during the writing process. (3) the topic-based collaboration network, which allows a deeper analysis of topics in relation to author contribution and collaboration, using our novel algorithm DiffATM in conjunction with a DiffLDA-related technique. These models are evaluated to examine whether these automatically discovered topics accurately describe the evolution of writing processes. We illustrate how these visualisations are used with real documents written by groups of graduate students.

References

  1. Andrews, N. O. and Fox, E. A. 2007. Recent Developments in Document Clustering. TR-07-35. Computer Science, Virginia Tech.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Blei, D. M. and Lafferty, J. D. 2009. Topic models, in Text Mining: Classification, Clustering, and Applications. A. Srivastava and M. Sahami, Eds.: Chapman & Hall/CRC Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Series.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., and Jordan, M. I. 2003. Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 3 (Mar. 2003), 993--1022. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Broniatowski, D. A. and Christopher, L. M. 2012. Studying Group Behaviours: A Tutorial on Text and Network Analysis Methods. IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING MAGAZINE. (Mar. 2012), 22--32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Caporossi, G. and Leblay, C. 2011. Online Writing Data Representation: A Graph Theory Approach. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Advances in intelligent data analysis X (Porto, Portugal, October 29--31, 2011), 80--89. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Flower, L. and Hayes, J. 1981. A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication. 32 (Dec. 1981), 365--387.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Griffiths, T. L. and Steyvers, M. 2004. Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 101 (Suppl. 1) (Apr. 2004), 5228--35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Kay, J., Maisonneuve, N., Yacef, K., and Reimann, P. 2006. The big five and visualisations of team work activity. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (Jhongli, Taiwan, June 26--30, 2006), 197--206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Kim, S. and Lebanon, G. 2010. Local Space-Time Smoothing for Version Controlled Documents. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Beijing, China, August 23--27, 2010). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Liu, M. and Calvo, R. A. 2011. Question Taxonomy and Implications for Automatic Question Generation. In Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence in Education (Auckland, New Zealand, 2011), 504--506. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. O'Rourke, S., Calvo, R. A., and McNamara, D. 2011. Visualizing Topic Flow in Students' Essays. Journal of Educational Technology and Society. 14 (Jul. 2011), 4--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Perrin, D. and Wildi, M. 2010. Statistical modeling of writing processes, in Traditions of Writing Research. C. Bazerman, et al., Eds.: Routledge, 378--393.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Rosen-Zvi, M., Chemudugunta, C., Griffiths, T., Smyth, P., and Steyvers, M. 2010. Learning author-topic models from text corpora. ACM Transactions on Information Systems. 28 (Jan. 2010), 1--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Rosen-zvi, M., Griffiths, T., Steyvers, M., and Smyth, P. 2003. The Author-Topic Model for Authors and Documents. In Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (Banff, Canada, July 7--11, 2003). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Shermis, M. D. and Burstein, J. 2003. Automated Essay Scoring: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Southavilay, V., Yacef, K., and Calvo, R. A. 2009. WriteProc: A Framework for Exploring Collaborative Writing Processes. In Proceedings of Australasian Document Computing Symposium (Sydney, Australia, 2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Steinbach, M., Karypis, G., and Kumar, V. 2000. A Comparison of Document Clustering Techniques. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the International KDD Workshop on Text Mining 2000. (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Thomas, S. W., Adams, B., Hassan, A. E., and Blostein, D. 2010. DiffLDA: Topic Evolution in Software Projects. Technical Report 2010-574 2010-574. School of Computting, Queen's University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Thomas, S. W., Adams, B., Hassan, A. E., and Blostein, D. 2011. Modeling the Evolution of Topics in Source Code Histories. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE working conf on mining software repositories (Honolulu, HI, USA, May 21--28, 2011), 173--182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Toolbox, T. M. 2012. http://psiexp.ss.uci.edu/research/programs_data/toolbox.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Upton, K. and Kay, J. 2009. Narcissus: interactive activity mirror for small groups. In Proceedings of the 17 International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalisation (Trento, Italy, June 22--26, 2009), 54--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Villalon, J. and Calvo, R. A. 2011. Concept maps as cognitive visualizations of writing assignments. Journal of Educational Technology and Society. 14 (Jul. 2011), 16--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Analysis of collaborative writing processes using revision maps and probabilistic topic models

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        LAK '13: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge
        April 2013
        300 pages
        ISBN:9781450317856
        DOI:10.1145/2460296

        Copyright © 2013 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 8 April 2013

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        LAK '13 Paper Acceptance Rate16of58submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate236of782submissions,30%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader