skip to main content
10.1145/3209978.3210210acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

LessonWare: Mining Student Notes to Provide Personalized Feedback

Published: 27 June 2018 Publication History

Abstract

A new educational service has been prototyped by Echo360 that uses natural language processing to analyze students notes and provide personalized recommendations on how to both improve note-taking and scaffold learning. The LessonWare middleware system uses computer-generated transcriptions from class captures and available student notes to identify key terms mentioned during class sessions. The combination of analyzed key terms and corresponding timestamps allows contextual linkages to be created between educational resources. Student notes are automatically augmented with corresponding moments in class captures, specific pages in the course eTextbook or open education resources or specific adaptive learning assets.

References

[1]
Boyle, J. R., Rosen, S. M., & Forchelli, G. (2016). Exploring metacognitive strategy use during note-taking for students with learning disabilities. Education 3--13, 44(2), 161--180.
[2]
Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking with computers: Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 299--309.
[3]
Christopoulos, J. P., Rohwer, W. D., & Thomas, J. W. (1987). Grade level differences in students' study activities as a function of course characteristics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12(4), 303--323.
[4]
Hartley, J., & Davies, I. K. (1978). Note-taking: A critical review. Innovations in Education & Training International, 15(3), 207--224.
[5]
Jansen, R. S., Lakens, D., & Ijsselsteijn, W. A. (2017). An integrative review of the cognitive costs and benefits of note-taking. Educational Research Review, 22, 223--233.
[6]
Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 240--245.
[7]
Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., & Samuelson, L. (2016). Revising lecture notes: how revision, pauses, and partners affect note taking and achievement. Instructional Science, 44(1), 45--67.
[8]
May, C. (2014). A learning secret: Don't take notes with a laptop. Scientific American, 3.
[9]
Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159--1168.
[10]
Nye, P. A. (1978). Student Variables in Relation to Note-taking during a Lecture. Innovations in Education & Training International, 15(3), 196--200.
[11]
Samson, P. J. (2017). {Survey Results from CLIMATE 102 over Four Semesters}.
[12]
Spickard, A., Gigante, J., Stein, G., & Denny, J. C. (2008). Automatic capture of student notes to augment mentor feedback and student performance on patient write-ups. Journal of general internal medicine, 23(7), 979--984.
[13]
Williams, R. L., & Eggert, A. C. (2002). Notetaking in College Classes: Student Patterns and Instructional Strategies. The Journal of General Education, 51(3), 173--199. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/stable/27797918

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SIGIR '18: The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval
June 2018
1509 pages
ISBN:9781450356572
DOI:10.1145/3209978
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 27 June 2018

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. contextual linkages
  2. natural language processing
  3. personalized recommendation
  4. student notes

Qualifiers

  • Abstract

Conference

SIGIR '18
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

SIGIR '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 86 of 409 submissions, 21%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 792 of 3,983 submissions, 20%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 149
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)4
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 18 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media