Formative computer-based feedback in the university classroom: Specific concept maps scaffold students’ writing

Computers in Human Behavior

Volumn 72, Issue , 2017, Pages 459-469

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^b KNOWLEDGE MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cohesion; Computer based feedback; Concept maps; Writing

Indexed keywords

ADHESION; EDUCATION; SCAFFOLDS; TECHNICAL WRITING;

COHESION; CONCEPT MAPS; FORMATIVE FEEDBACKS; LARGE LECTURE; PERCEIVED DIFFICULTIES; UNIVERSITY CLASSROOMS;

STUDENTS;

CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; STUDENT; UNIVERSITY; WRITING;

EID: 85014742447     PISSN: 07475632     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.008     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Ainsworth, S., DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction 16:3 (2006), 183–198, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001.
2. Almarashdeh, I., Sharing instructors experience of learning management system: A technology perspective of user satisfaction in distance learning course. Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016), 249–255, 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.013.
3. American Psychological Association, Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist 57 (2002), 1060–1073, 10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060.
4. Anderson, T., Shattuck, J., Design-based research a decade of progress in education research?. Educational Researcher 41:1 (2012), 16–25, 10.3102/0013189X11428813.
5. Berlanga, A.J., van Rosmalen, P., Boshuizen, H.P., Sloep, P.B., Exploring formative feedback on textual assignments with the help of automatically created visual representations. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 28:2 (2012), 146–160, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00425.x.
6. Berthold, K., Renkl, A., Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology 101:1 (2009), 70–87, 10.1037/a0013247.
7. Bolzer, M., Strijbos, J.W., Fischer, F., Inferring mindful cognitive-processing of peer-feedback via eye-tracking: Role of feedback-characteristics, fixation-durations and transitions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2014, 10.1111/jcal.12091.
8. Caccamise, D., Franzke, M., Eckhoff, A., Kintsch, E., Kintsch, W., Guided practice in technology-based summary writing. McNamara, D., (eds.) Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies, 2007, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 375–396.
9. Carbone, E., Greenberg, J., Teaching large classes: Unpacking the problem and responding creatively. To Improve the Academy. 1998 Paper 399 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/podimproveacad/399.
10. Chapman, L., Ludlow, L., Can downsizing college class sizes augment student outcomes?: An investigation of the effects of class size on student learning. The Journal of General Education 59:2 (2010), 105–123, 10.1353/jge.2010.0012.
11. Cho, K., MacArthur, C., Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology 103:1 (2011), 73–84, 10.1037/a0021950.
12. Cohen, J., Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 1988, Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillside. New York, NJ.
13. Concha, S., Paratore, J.R., Local coherence in persuasive writing: An exploration of Chilean students’ metalinguistic knowledge, writing process, and writing products. Written Communication 28:1 (2011), 34–69, 10.1177/0741088310383383.
14. Cuseo, J., The empirical case against large class size: Adverse effects on the teaching, learning, and retention of first-year students. The Journal of Faculty Development 21:1 (2007), 5–21.
15. De Smet, M.J.R., Brand-Gruwel, S., Broekkamp, H., Kirschner, P.A., Write between the lines: Electronic outlining and the organization of text ideas. Computers in Human Behavior 28:6 (2012), 2107–2116, 10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.015.
16. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., Handbook of self-determination research. 2002, University Rochester Press, Rochester, NY.
17. Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., Sendurur, P., Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education 59:2 (2012), 423–435, 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001.
18. Geske, J., Overcoming the drawbacks of the large lecture class. College Teaching 40:4 (1992), 151–154, 10.1080/87567555.1992.10532239.
19. Gleason, M., Better communication in large courses. College Teaching 34:1 (1986), 20–24, 10.1080/87567555.1986.10532325.
20. Goldberg, B., Cannon-Bowers, J., Feedback source modality effects on training outcomes in a serious game: Pedagogical agents make a difference. Computers in Human Behavior 52 (2015), 1–11, 10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.008.
21. Golke, S., Dörfler, T., Artelt, C., The impact of elaborated feedback on text comprehension within a computer-based assessment. Learning and Instruction 39 (2015), 123–136, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.009.
22. Graesser, A.C., Millis, K.K., Zwaan, R.A., Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology 48:1 (1997), 163–189, 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.163.
23. Graham, S., Hebert, M., Harris, K.R., Formative assessment and writing: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal 115:4 (2015), 523–547, 10.1086/681947.
24. Halliday, M.A.K., Hasan, R., Cohesion in english. 1976, Longman, London.
25. Hamp, B., Feldweg, H., GermaNet - a lexical-semantic net for German. Proceedings of the ACL workshop automatic information extraction and building of lexical semantic resources for NLP applications. Madrid, 1997.
26. Hayes, J.R., Flower, L.S., Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist 41:10 (1986), 1106–1113, 10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1106.
27. Herppich, S., Wittwer, J., Nückles, M., Renkl, A., Addressing knowledge deficits in tutoring and the role of teaching experience: Benefits for learning and summative assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology 106:4 (2014), 934–945, 10.1037/a0036076.
28. Ifenthaler, D., Schweinbenz, V., Students’ acceptance of tablet pcs in the classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 48:4 (2016), 306–321, 10.1080/15391523.2016.1215172.
29. Kalyuga, S., Renkl, A., Paas, F., Facilitating flexible problem solving: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychology Review 22:2 (2010), 175–186, 10.1007/s10648-010-9132-9.
30. Kellogg, R.T., Whiteford, A.P., Turner, C.E., Cahill, M., Merlens, A., Working memory in written composition: An evaluation of the 1996 model. Journal of Writing Research 5:2 (2013), 159–190, 10.17239/jowr-2013.05.02.1.
31. Lachner, A., Burkhart, C., Nückles, M., Mind the gap! Automated concept map feedback supports students in writing cohesive explanations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2017, 10.1037/xap0000111 Advance Online Publication.
32. Lachner, A., Nückles, M., Bothered by abstractness or engaged by cohesion? Experts’ explanations enhance novices’ deep-learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 21:1 (2015), 101–115, 10.1037//xap0000038.
33. Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A., Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11:1 (1987), 65–100, 10.1111/j.1551-6708.1987.tb00863.x.
34. Leinhardt, G., Instructional explanations: A commonplace for teaching and location for contrast. Richardson, V., (eds.) Handbook for research on teaching, 2001, American Educational Research, Washington, DC, 333–357.
35. McCrudden, M.T., Schraw, G., Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review 19:2 (2007), 113–139, 10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7.
36. McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, W., Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes 22:3 (1996), 247–287, 10.1080/01638539609544975.
37. McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M., McCarthy, P.M., Graesser, A.C., Coh-metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes 47:4 (2010), 292–330, 10.1080/0.
38. Moore, N.S., MacArthur, C.A., Student use of automated essay evaluation technology during revision. Journal of Writing Research, 8, 2016, 10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.05.
39. Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E., Spires, H.A., Lester, J.C., The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents?. Cognition and Instruction 19:2 (2001), 177–213, 10.1207/S1532690XCI1902_02.
40. National Commission on Writing, Writing: A ticket to work.. or a ticket out. 2004, September Available on www.collegeboard.com.
41. Nussbaum, E.M., Schraw, G., Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education 76:1 (2007), 59–92, 10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92.
42. Oeberst, A., Halatchliyski, I., Kimmerle, J., Cress, U., Knowledge construction in Wikipedia: A systemic-constructivist analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences 23 (2014), 149–176, 10.1080/10508406.2014.888352.
43. Ott, N., Ziai, R., Meurers, D., Creation and analysis of a reading comprehension exercise corpus: Towards evaluating meaning in context. Schmidt, T., Wörner, K., (eds.) Multilingual corpora and multilingual corpus analysis, hamburg studies in multilingualism (HSM), 2012, Benjamins, Amsterdam, 47–69.
44. O'Reilly, T., McNamara, D.S., Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes 43:2 (2007), 121–152, 10.1207/s15326950dp4302_2.
45. Ritzhaupt, A.D., Kealy, W.A., On the utility of pictorial feedback in computer-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior 48 (2015), 525–534, 10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.037.
46. Roelle, J., Lehmkuhl, N., Beyer, M.-U., Berthold, K., The role of specificity, targeted learning activities, and prior knowledge for the effects of relevance instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology 107 (2015), 705–723, 10.1037/edu0000010.
47. Roscoe, R., McNamara, D., Writing Pal: Feasibility of an intelligent writing strategy tutor in the high school classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology 105 (2013), 1010–1025, 10.1037/a0032340.
48. Roscoe, R.D., Wilson, J., Johnson, A.C., Mayra, C.R., Presentation, expectations, and experience: Sources of student perceptions of automated writing evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017, 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.076.
49. Rowan, K.E., A contemporary theory of explanatory writing. Written Communication 5:1 (1988), 23–56, 10.1177/0741088388005001002.
50. Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Furtak, E.M., Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44:1 (2007), 57–84, 10.1002/tea.20163.
51. Schmid, H., Laws, F., Estimation of conditional probabilities with decision trees and an application to fine-grained POS tagging. Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on computational linguistics, 2008.
52. Shute, V.J., Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research 78:1 (2008), 153–189, 10.3102/0034654307313795.
53. Staub, F.C., Stern, E., The nature of teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs matters for students’ achievement gains: Quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 2002, 344, 10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.344.
54. Strijbos, J.W., Narciss, S., Dünnebier, K., Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency?. Learning and Instruction 20:4 (2010), 291–303, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008.
55. Sweller, J., Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. Plass, J.L., Moreno, R., Brünken, R., (eds.) Cognitive load theory, 2010, Cambridge University Press, New York, 29–47.
56. Trees, A.R., Jackson, M.H., The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology 32:1 (2007), 21–40, 10.1080/17439880601141179.
57. Van Valin, R.D., An introduction to syntax. 2001, Cambridge University Press, New York.
58. Wade-Stein, D., Kintsch, E., Summary Street: Interactive computer support for writing. Cognition and Instruction 22:3 (2004), 333–362, 10.1207/s1532690xci2203_3.
59. Wang, Y.M., Wang, Y.C., Determinants of firms’ knowledge management system implementation: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016), 829–842, 10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.055.
60. Wegner, E., Nückles, M., Training the brain or tending a garden? Students’ metaphors of learning predict self-reported learning patterns. Frontline Learning Research 3:4 (2016), 95–109, 10.14786/flr.v3i4.212.
61. Wirtz, M.A., Caspar, F., Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität: Methoden zur Bestimmung und Verbesserung der Zuverlässigkeit von Einschätzungen mittels Kategoriensystemen und Ratingskalen (Trans.) Interrater Agreement und interrater reliability: Methods for calculating and improving the reliability of ratings by category systems and rating scales, 2002, Hogrefe, Göttingen.
62. Wittwer, J., Ihme, N., Reading skill moderates the impact of semantic similarity and causal specificity on the coherence of explanations. Discourse Processes 51:1–2 (2014), 143–166, 10.1080/0163853X.2013.855577.
63. Wittwer, J., Renkl, A., Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist 43:1 (2008), 49–64, 10.1080/00461520701756420.
64. Wulff, D.H., Nyquist, J.D., Abbott, R.D., Students’ perceptions of large classes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 1987:32 (1987), 17–30, 10.1002/tl.37219873204.
65. ∗SEM), 2016, Association for Computational Linguistics, Berlin, Germany, 209–218.