Learning by writing explanations: computer-based feedback about the explanatory cohesion enhances students’ transfer
Recent studies documented that the act of writing explanations improves students’ learning only to a limited extent, as students attend less frequently to genre-typical features of comprehensibility during writing explanations (i.e., cohesion). In this study, we investigated whether learning by writing explanations can be enhanced when students additionally receive computer-based feedback on the cohesion of their explanations. Sixty-one advanced students studied a hyper-text about photovoltaic panels. Afterwards, they provided a written explanation about the learning content. During writing, students randomly received either individual computer-based feedback in the form of a concept map or not. Our findings indicated that students who received additional concept map feedback outperformed students without such feedback on a transfer test. Mediation analyses revealed that the effect of the concept map feedback on students’ transfer was mediated by the level of global cohesion of the provided explanations. Thus, we can conclude that learning by writing explanations can be enhanced by formative computer-based feedback that provides specific information about the quality of students’ written explanations.
KeywordsLearning by explaining Computer-based feedback Writing Concept map
The data reported in this article were collected by Carmen Neuburg as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the master’s degree at the University of Freiburg. All data were completely reanalyzed in preparation for this paper. We would like to thank Eleonora Dolderer for helping us with coding the data, and Brian Davis for proofreading the manuscript.
- Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Creedon, P.J., & Hayes, A. F. (2015). Small sample mediation analysis: How far can you push the bootstrap? In Presented at the annual conference of the Association for Psychological Science, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in english. London: Longman.Google Scholar
- Hamp, B., & Feldweg, H. (1997). GermaNet—A lexical-semantic net for german. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop Automatic Information Extraction and Building of Lexical Semantic Resources for NLP Applications. Madrid.Google Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, London: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Hoogerheide, V., Deijkers, L., Loyens, S. M., Heijltjes, A., & van Gog, T. (2016). Gaining from explaining: Learning improves from explaining to fictitious others on video, not from writing to them. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.005.Google Scholar
- Hoogerheide, V., Loyens, S. M., & van Gog, T. (2014). Effects of creating video-based modeling examples on learning and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 33, 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.04.005.Google Scholar
- Kulgemeyer, C., & Riese, J. (2018). From professional knowledge to professional performance: The impact of CK and PCK on teaching quality in explaining situations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21457.
- Lachner, A., Backhauß, R., Krecker, J., Meier, J., Burkhart, C., & Nückles, M. (2018b). Two is better than one? Effects of prior-strategy instruction and concept-map feedback on students’ argumentative writing. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Li, H., Cai, Z., & Graesser, A. C. (2017). Computerized summary scoring: Crowdsourcing-based latent semantic analysis. Behavior Research Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0982-7.
- Linderholm, T., Everson, M. G., van den Broek, P., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., & Samuels, J. (2001). Effects of causal text revision on more or less-skilled readers’ comprehension of easy and difficult texts. Cognition & Instruction, 18(4), 525–556. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_4.Google Scholar
- McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh-metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47(4), 292–330.Google Scholar
- Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.002.Google Scholar
- Plötzner, R., Dillenbourg, P., Preier, M., & Traum, D. (1999). Learning by explaining to oneself and to others. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 103–121). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. Advances in applied psycholinguistics, 2, 142–175.Google Scholar
- Schmid, H., & Laws, F. (2008). Estimation of conditional probabilities with decision trees and an application to fine-grained POS tagging. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
- Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. L. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1–51). CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Taber, K. S. (2017). The use of cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
- Van Valin, R. D. (2001). An introduction to syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Wiley, J., Hastings, P., Blaum, D., Jaeger, A. J., Hughes, S., Wallace, P., et al. (2017). Different approaches to assessing the quality of explanations following a multiple-document inquiry activity in science. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 27(4), 758–790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-017-0138-z.Google Scholar
- Wirtz, M. A., & Caspar, F. (2002). Interrater Agreement und interrater reliability: Methods for calculating and improving the reliability of ratings by category systems and rating scales. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar