Advertisement

Learning by writing explanations: computer-based feedback about the explanatory cohesion enhances students’ transfer

  • Andreas Lachner
  • Carmen Neuburg
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Learning by explaining Computer-based feedback Writing Concept map 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. Arnold, K. M., Umanath, S., Thio, K., Reilly, W. B., McDaniel, M. A., & Marsh, E. J. (2017). Understanding the cognitive processes involved in writing to learn. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(2), 115.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000119.Google Scholar
  2. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29–58.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(5), 593.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.72.5.593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70–87.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braaksma, M. A., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. M. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 1–36.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-contructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Say more and be more coherent: How text elaboration and cohesion can increase writing quality. Journal of Writing Research, 7(3), 351–370.  https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.07.03.02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denancé, V., & Somat, A. (2015). Learning by explaining: Impacts of explanations on the development of a competence. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 65(6), 307–315.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2015.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis, R. A. (2006). Investigating the quality of student approaches to using technology in experiences of learning through writing. Computers & Education, 46(4), 371–390.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2013). The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 281–288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Role of expectations and explanations in learning by teaching. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 75–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9.Google Scholar
  17. Fyfe, E. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2016). Feedback both helps and hinders learning: The causal role of prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 82–97.  https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galbraith, D. (1992). Conditions for discovery through writing. Instructional Science, 21, 45–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00119655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 163–189.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in english. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, London: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  23. Holmes, J. (2007). Designing agents to support learning by explaining. Computers & Education, 48(4), 523–547.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Toward automated computer-based visualization and assessment of team-based performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 651–665.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kalyuga, S., Renkl, A., & Paas, F. (2010). Facilitating flexible problem solving: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 175–186.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9132-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 250–266.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.
  30. Lachner, A., & Nückles, M. (2015). Bothered by abstractness or engaged by cohesion? Experts’ explanations enhance novices’ deep-learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(1), 101–115.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000038.Google Scholar
  31. Lachner, A., Burkhart, C., & Nückles, M. (2017a). Formative computer-based feedback in the university classroom: Specific concept maps scaffold students’ writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 72(4), 459–469.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lachner, A., Burkhart, C., & Nückles, M. (2017b). Mind the gap! Automated concept map feedback supports students in writing cohesive explanations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(1), 29–46.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000111.Google Scholar
  33. Lachner, A., Ly, K., & Nückles, M. (2018a). Providing written or oral explanations? Differential effects of the modality of explaining on students’ conceptual learning and transfer. Journal of Experimental Education, 86(3), 344–361.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1363691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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.
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu, P. L. (2011). A study on the use of computerized concept mapping to assist ESL learners’ writing. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2548–2558.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247–287.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Okita, S. Y., & Schwartz, D. L. (2013). Learning by teaching human pupils and teachable agents: The importance of recursive feedback. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3), 375–412.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.807263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Penrose, A. M. (1992). To write or not to write: Effects of task and task interpretation on learning through writing. Written Communication, 9, 465–500.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088392009004002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Rittle-Johnson, B., Saylor, M., & Swygert, K. E. (2008). Learning from explaining: Does it matter if mom is listening? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 100(3), 215–224.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roscoe, R. D. (2014). Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learning by teaching. Instructional Science, 42(3), 327–351.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9283-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36(4), 321–350.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9034-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roscoe, R. D., Jacovina, M. E., Harry, D., Russell, D. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2015). Partial verbal redundancy in multimedia presentations for writing strategy instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(5), 669–679.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roscoe, R. D., & McNamara, D. (2013). Writing Pal: Feasibility of an intelligent writing strategy tutor in the high school classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1010–1025.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. Advances in applied psycholinguistics, 2, 142–175.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. Spirgel, A. S., & Delaney, P. F. (2016). Does writing summaries improve memory for text? Educational Psychology Review, 28, 171–196.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9290-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sung, Y. T., Liao, C. N., Chang, T. H., Chen, C. L., & Chang, K. E. (2016). The effect of online summary assessment and feedback system on the summary writing on 6th graders: The LSA-based technique. Computers & Education, 95, 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.
  57. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55.  https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Valin, R. D. (2001). An introduction to syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Williams, J. J., & Lombrozo, T. (2010). The role of explanation in discovery and generalization: Evidence from category learning. Cognitive Science, 34(5), 776–806.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01113.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilson, J., & Czik, A. (2016). Automated essay evaluation software in English language arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality. Computers & Education, 100, 94–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Wischgoll, A. (2017). Improving undergraduates’ and postgraduates’ academic writing skills with strategy training and feedback. Frontiers in Education., 2(33), 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00033.Google Scholar
  64. Wittwer, J., & Ihme, N. (2014). Reading skill moderates the impact of semantic similarity and causal specificity on the coherence of explanations. Discourse Processes, 51(1–2), 143–166.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.855577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 49–64.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz-Institut für WissensmedienTübingenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Educational ScienceUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of Educational TechnologyUniversity of DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations