Understanding and reasoning with text

Cross-Disciplinary Advances in Applied Natural Language Processing: Issues and Approaches

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 133-154

  Anne Britt, M ^a   Wiemer, Katja ^a   Millis, Keith K ^a   Magliano, Joseph P ^a   Wallace, Patty ^a   Hastings, Peter ^b  

^a NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DEPAUL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84898552142     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61350-447-5.ch010     Document Type: Chapter

References (66)

1. Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147-179. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2602_1
2. Baker, R., Walonoski, J., Heffernan, N., Roll, I., Corbett, A., & Koedinger, K. (2008). Why students engage in "gaming the system" behavior in interactive learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 185-224.
3. Baker, R. S. J. d., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Roll, I. (2006). Generalizing detection of gaming the system across a tutoring curriculum. 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, (pp. 402-11).
4. Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1992). Explaining "memory free" reasoning. Psychological Science, 3(6), 332-339. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00042.x
5. Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1998). When things that were never experienced are easier to "remember" than things that were. Psychological Science, 9(6), 484-489. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00089
6. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7. Bråten, I.,Strømsø, H. I., &Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Are sophisticated students always better? The role of topic-specific personal epistemology in the understanding of multiple expository texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 814-840. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.02.001
8. Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the Web: Student evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32, 191-213.
9. Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students' ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485-522. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_2
10. Britt, M. A., Kurby, C. A., Dandotkar, S., & Wolfe, C. R. (2008). I agreed with what? Memory for simple argument claims. Discourse Processes, 45(1), 52-84. doi:10.1080/01638530701739207
11. Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Van Dyke, J., & Gabrys, G. (2000). The sourcer's apprentice: A tool for document-supported history instruction. In Stearns, P., Seixas, P., & Wineburg, S. (Eds.), Knowing, teaching and learning history: National and international perspectives (pp. 437-470). New York, NY: NYU Press.
12. Britt, M. A., Storey, J. K., Kopp, K., Dandotkar, S., & Larson, A. A. (2007). Web-based tutorials to improve argumentative evaluation. Poster presented at the 2007 IES National Research Conference. Washington, D.C.
13. Britt, M. A., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Larson, A. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (2004). Using intelligent feedback to improve sourcing and integration in students' essays. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 359-374.
14. Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & La Vancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
15. Craig, S. D., Sullins, J., Witherspoon, A., & Gholson, B. (2006). Deep-level reasoning questions effect: The role of dialog and deep-level reasoning questions during vicarious learning. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 563-589. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2404_4
16. Foltz, P. W., Kintsch, W., & Landauer, T. K. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2&3), 285-307. doi:10.1080/01638539809545029
17. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
18. Gilliam, S., Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Levinstein, I., & Boonthum, C. (2007). Assessing the format of the presentation of text in developing a reading strategy assessment tool (RSAT). Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 39, 199-204. doi:10.3758/BF03193148
19. Graesser, A. C., Chipman, P., Haynes, B. C., & Olney, A. (2005). AutoTutor: An intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48, 612-618. doi:10.1109/TE.2005.856149
20. Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Mathews, E. C., Mitchell, H. H., Olney, A., & Ventura, M. TRG. (2003). Why/AutoTutor: A test of learning gains from a physics tutor with natural language dialog. In R. Alterman & D. Hirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1-6). Boston, MA: Cognitive Science Society.
21. Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., Jackson, G. T., Mitchell, H., Ventura, M., Olney, A., & Louwerse, M. M. (2004). AutoTutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 180-193. doi:10.3758/BF03195563
22. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104-137.
23. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371
24. Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Kreuz, R., & The, T. R. G. (1999). AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 35-51. doi:10.1016/S1389-0417(99)00005-4
25. Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235-266. doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
27. Kintsch, E., Caccamise, D., Franzke, M., Johnson, N., & Dooley, S. (2007). Summary street: Computer-guided summary writing. In T. K. Landauer, D. M., McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Latent semantic analysis (pp. 263-277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
29. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
30. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363
31. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2004). Promoting deep science learning through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in learning by design-super (TM) classrooms. In Seel, N. M., & Dijkstra, S. (Eds.), Curriculum, plans, and processes in instructional design: International perspectives (pp. 89-114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Kopp, K. J., Britt, M. A., Millis, K. K., Graesser, A. (In preparation). Improving the efficiency of dialogue in tutoring.
33. Kurby, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Dandotkar, S. (2006, July). Representing argument claims: Availability and Accessibility of the predicate and implications on argument evaluation. Poster presented for the 16th Annual Conference of the Society for Text and Discourse, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
34. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211-240. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
35. Larson, A. A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. (2009). Improving students' evaluation of informal arguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77(4), 339-366. doi:10.3200/JEXE.77.4.339-366
36. Leelawong, K., & Biswas, G. (2008). Designing learning by teaching agents: The Betty's brain system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 18(3), 181-208.
37. Magliano, J. P. (1999). Revealing inference processes during text comprehension. In Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., & van den Broek, P. (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 55-75). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 251-284. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2103_02
39. Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K. The RSAT Development Team, Levinstein, I., &Boonthum, C. (under review). Assessing comprehension during reading with the reading strategy assessment Tool (RSAT). An unpublished manuscript.
40. Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A multidimensional framework to evaluate reading assessment tools. In McNamara, D. S. (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 107-136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processes during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615-629. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.615
42. Millis, K. K., Kim, H. J., Todaro, S., Magliano, J., Wiemer-Hastings, K., & McNamara, D. (2004). Identifying reading strategies using latent semantic analysis: Comparing semantic benchmarks. Behavior Research Methods, 36, 213-221.
43. Millis, K. K., Magliano, J. P., & Todaro, S. (2006). Measuring discourse-level processes with verbal protocols and latent semantic analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 251-283. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_2
44. Millis, K. K., Magliano, J. P., Todaro, S., & Mc-Namara, D. S. (2007). Assessing and improving comprehension with latent semantic analysis. To appear in T. Landauer, D.S., McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), LSA: A road to meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
45. Mislevy, R. J. (1993). Foundations of a new test theory. In Frederikson, N., Mislevy, R. J., & Bejar, I. I. (Eds.), Tests theory for a new generation of tests. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
46. National Assessment of Education Progress: Prepublication version of Science Framework for the 2009 NAEP. (2006). Retrieved November 06, from http://www.nagb.org/pubs/pubs.html
47. Olson, G. M., Duffy, S. A., & Mack, R. L. (1984). Thinking-out-loud as a method for studying real-time comprehension processes. In Kieras, D., & Just, M. (Eds.), New methods in the study of immediate processes in comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (2002). Reading for change. Performance and engagement across countries. Paris, France: OECD Publications.
49. Pellegrino, J. W., & Chudowsky, N. (2003). The foundations of assessment. Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1, 103-148. doi:10.1207/S15366359MEA0102_01
50. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science of design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
51. Reichherzer, T., Cañas, A. J., Ford, K. M., &Hayes, P. J. (1998). The giant: An agent-based approach to knowledge construction and sharing. FLAIRS Conference, (pp. 136-140).
52. Ritter, S., Anderson, J. R., Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2007). Cognitive tutor: Applied research in mathematics education. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 249-255. doi:10.3758/BF03194060
53. Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 478-493. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.478
54. Rouet, J.-F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 85-106. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1501_3
55. Seixas, P. (1994). When psychologists discuss historical thinking: A historian's perspective. Educational Psychologist, 29(2), 107-109. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2902_6
56. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive computer-tool met.a.ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 716-737. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2007.01.023
57. Storey, J. K., Kopp, K. J., Wiemer, K., Chipman, P., & Graesser, A. C. (in press). Using AutoTutor to teach scientific critical thinking skills. Behavior Research Methods.
58. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
59. Trabasso, T., & Magliano, J. P. (1996). Conscious understanding during comprehension. Discourse Processes, 21, 255-287. doi:10.1080/01638539609544959
60. Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1(4), 337-350. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(91)90013-X
61. Weizenbaum, J. (1966). Eliza-A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9, 36-45. doi:10.1145/365153.365168
62. Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1060-1106. doi:10.3102/0002831209333183
63. Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73-87. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73
64. Wineburg, S. S. (2000). Making historical sense. In Stearns, P., Seixas, P., & Wineburg, S. (Eds.), Knowing, teaching and learning history: National and international perspectives (pp. 306-325). New York, NY: NYU Press.
65. Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467-502. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2304_2
66. Yee, N. (2006). The labor of fun: How video games blur the boundaries of work and play. Games and Culture, 1(1), 68-71. doi:10.1177/1555412005281819