Mind the gap! automated concept map feedback supports students in writing cohesive explanations

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 29-46

  Lachner, Andreas ^a   Burkhart, Christian ^a   Nückles, Matthias ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cohesion; Concept maps; Feedback; Instructional explanations; Writing

Indexed keywords

COGNITION; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; STUDENT; WRITING;

COGNITION; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; STUDENTS; WRITING;

EID: 85007578430     PISSN: 1076898X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/xap0000111     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060
2. Berlanga, A. J., Van Rosmalen, P., Boshuizen, H. P., & Sloep, P. B. (2012). Exploring formative feedback on textual assignments with the help of automatically created visual representations. Journal of Computer As-sisted Learning, 28, 146-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00425.x
3. Britton, B. K., & Gülgöz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.3.329
4. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20, 328-338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006
5. Concha, S., & Paratore, J. R. (2011). Local coherence in persuasive writing: An exploration of Chilean students' metalinguistic knowledge, writing process, and writing products. Written Communication, 28, 34-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088310383383
6. de Smet, M. J. R., Brand-Gruwel, S., Leijten, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). Electronic outlining as a writing strategy: Effects on students' writing products, mental effort and writing process. Computers & Education, 78, 352-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.010
7. D'Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 145-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.001
8. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2011). From Encyclopaedia Britannica to Wikipedia: Generational differences in the perceived credibility of online encyclopedia information. Information, Communication & Society, 14, 355-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2010.542823
9. Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438, 900-901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/438900a
10. Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.163
11. Gurlitt, J., Dummel, S., Schuster, S., & Nückles, M. (2012). Differently structured advance organizers lead to different initial schemata and learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 40, 351-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9180-7
12. Hall, S. S., Kowalski, R., Paterson, K. B., Basran, J., Filik, R.,& Maltby, J. (2015). Local text cohesion, reading ability and individual science aspirations: Key factors influencing comprehension in science classes. British Educational Research Journal, 41, 122-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/berj.3134
13. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, UK: Longman.
14. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106-1113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1106
15. Hayes, J. R., Flower, L., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J. F., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2, Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 176-240). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
16. Herppich, S., Wittwer, J., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2014). Addressing knowledge deficits in tutoring and the role of teaching experience: Benefits for learning and summative assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 934-945. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036076
17. Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Toward automated computer-based visualization and assessment of team-based performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 651-665. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035505
18. Kalyuga, S., Renkl, A., & Paas, F. (2010). Facilitating flexible problem solving: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 175-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9132-9
19. Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44, 250-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213600
20. Lachner, A., & Nückles, M. (2015). Bothered by abstractness or engaged by cohesion? Experts' explanations enhance novices' deep-learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21, 101-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xap0000038
21. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6708.1987.tb00863.x
22. Leinhardt, G. (2001). Instructional explanations: A commonplace for teaching and location for contrast. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook for research on teaching (pp. 333-357). Washington, DC: American Educational Research.
23. Linderholm, T., Everson, M. G., van den Broek, P., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., & Samuels, J. (2000). Effects of causal text revision on more or less-skilled readers' comprehension of easy and difficult texts. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 525-556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_4
24. Lin-Siegler, X., Shaenfield, D., & Elder, A. D. (2015). Contrasting case instruction can improve self-assessment of writing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 517-537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9390-9
25. Martín-Blas, T., & Serrano-Fernández, A. (2009). The role of new technologies in the learning process: Moodle as a teaching tool in Physics. Computers & Education, 52, 35- 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.005
26. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975
27. McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh-metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47, 292-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959943
28. National Commission on Writing. (2004, September). Writing: A ticket to work . . . or a ticket out. Available on www.collegeboard.com
29. Nückles, M., Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2005). Information about a layperson's knowledge supports experts in giving effective and efficient online advice to laypersons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 219-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.219
30. Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argumentcounterargument integration in students' writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 59 -92. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92
31. Ozuru, Y., Briner, S., Best, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Contributions of self-explanation to comprehension of high- and low-cohesion texts. Discourse Processes, 47, 641- 667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638531003628809
32. Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. J. (2016). The nature of feedback: How peer feedback features affect students' implementation rate and quality of revisions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 1098-1120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000103
33. Roscoe, R., & McNamara, D. (2013). Writing Pal: Feasibility of an intelligent writing strategy tutor in the high school classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1010-1025. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032340
34. Rowan, K. E. (1988). A contemporary theory of explanatory writing. Written Communication, 5, 23-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088388005001002
35. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers' informal formative assessment practices and students' understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 57-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20163
36. Scheiter, K. (2013). Cognitive load theory. In M. A. Wirtz (Ed.), Dorsch- Lexikon der Psychologie [Dorsch-Encyclopedia of psychology] (pp. 328-329). Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
37. Schmid, H., & Laws, F. (2008). Estimation of conditional probabilities with decision trees and an application to fine-grained POS tagging. In A. Ramsay, & K. Bontcheva (Eds). In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 777-784). Manchester, United Kingdom: COLING
38. Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 759-775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025140
39. van Valin, R. D. (2001). An introduction to syntax. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164320
40. Wade-Stein, D., & Kintsch, E. (2004). Summary Street: Interactive computer support for writing. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 333-362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2203_3
41. Wirtz, M. A., & Caspar, F. (2002). Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität: Methoden zur Bestimmung und Verbesserung der Zuverlässigkeit von Einschätzungen mittels Kategoriensystemen und Ratingskalen [Inter-rater Agreement and inter-rater reliability: Methods for calculating and improving the reliability of ratings by category systems and rating scales]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
42. Wittwer, J., & Ihme, N. (2014). Reading skill moderates the impact of semantic similarity and causal specificity on the coherence of explanations. Discourse Processes, 51, 143-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.855577
43. Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43, 49-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756420