Abstract
Qualitative methods that analyze the coherence of expository texts not only are time consuming, but also present challenges in collecting data on coding reliability. We describe software that analyzes expository texts more rapidly and produces a notable level of objectivity ETAT (Expository Text Analysis Tool) analyzes the coherence of expository texts. ETAT adopts a symbolic representational system, known asconceptual graph structures. ETAT follows three steps: segmentation of a text into nodes, classification of the unidentified nodes, and linking the nodes with relational arcs. ETAT automatically constructs a graph in the form of nodes and their interrelationships, along with various attendant statistics and information about noninterrelated, isolated nodes. ETAT was developed in Java, so it is compatible with virtually all computer systems.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sinatra, G. M., &Loxterman, J. A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility.Reading Research Quarterly,26, 251–275.
Bovair, S., &Kieras, D. E. (1985). A guide to propositional analysis for research on technical prose. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.),Understanding expository text (pp. 315–362). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Britton, B. K., &Black, J. B. (1985).Understanding expository text. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Britton, B. K., Van Dusen, L., Glynn, S. M., &Hemphill, D. (1990). The impact of inferences on instructional text. In A. C. Graesser & G. H. Bower (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 25, pp. 53–70). San Diego: Academic Press.
Coulthard, M. (1994).Advances in written text analysis. London: Routledge.
Coulthard, M. (1997).An introduction to discourse analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ferstl, E. C., &Kintsch, W. (1998). Learning from text: Structural knowledge assessment in the study of discourse. In H. Van Oostenderp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.),The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 247–277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Two decades of structure building.Discourse Processes,23, 265–304.
Golden, R. M. (1998). Knowledge digraph contribution analysis of protocol data.Discourse Processes,25, 179–210.
Goldman, S. R., Varma, S., &Coté, N. (1996). Extending capacity-constrained construction integration: Toward “smarter” and flexible models of text comprehension. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.),Models of understanding text (pp. 73–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graesser, A. C. (1981).Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Graesser, A. C., &Goodman, S. H. (1985a). How to construct conceptual graph structures. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.),Understanding expository text (pp. 363–383). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graesser, A. C., &Goodman, S. H. (1985b). Implicit knowledge, question answering, and the representation of expository text. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.),Understanding expository text (pp. 109–171). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graesser, A. C., Gordon, S., &Brainerd, L. E. (1992). QUEST: A model of question answering.Computers & Mathematics with Applications,23, 733–745.
Graesser, A. C., &Hemphill, D. (1991). Question answering in the context of scientific mechanism.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 186–209.
Graesser, A. C., Lang, K. L., &Roberts, R. M. (1991). Question answering in the context of stories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,120, 254–277.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., &Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inference during narrative text comprehension.Psychological Review,101, 371–395.
Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, P., &Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2001). Constructing inferences and relations during text comprehension. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.),Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 249–271). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kintsch, W. (1974).The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kintsch, W. (1998).Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W., &van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review,85, 363–394.
Linderholm, T., Everson, M. G., Van Den Broek, P., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., &Samuels, J. (2001). Effects of causal text revisions on more- and less-skilled reader’s comprehension of easy and difficult texts.Cognition & Instruction,18, 525–556.
Linn, M., Songer, N. B., &Eylon, B.-S. (1996). Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 438–490). New York: Macmillan.
MacNeally, M. S., &Hedges, K. (1996). The effects of line length on the psychological reality of the paragraph. In R. J. Kreuz & M. S. MacNeally (Eds.),Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 99–123). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mandler, J. M., &Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall.Cognitive Psychology,9, 111–151.
Mannes, S., &George, M. S. (1996). Effects of prior knowledge on text comprehension: A simple modeling approach. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.),Models of understanding text (pp. 115–139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E, Songer, N. S., &Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text.Cognition & Instruction,14, 1–43.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975).The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures and problems. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.),Understanding expository text (pp. 11–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miller, J. R., &Kintsch, W. (1980). Readability and recall for short passages: A theoretical analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 335–354.
Naughton, P., &Schildt, H. (1997).JAVA: The complete reference. Berkeley, CA: Osborne McGraw-Hill.
Polanyi, L. (1988). A formal model of the structure of discourse.Journal of Pragmatics,12, 601–638.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Understanding and summarizing brief stories. In D. Laberge & S. J. Samuels (Eds.),Basic processes in reading: Perceptions and comprehensions (pp. 265–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.),Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sanders, T., &van Wijk, C. (1996). PISA: A procedure for analyzing the structure of explanatory texts.Text,16, 91–132.
Schank, R. C., &Abelson, R. P. (1977).Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stein, N. L., &Glenn, G. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.),New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2, pp. 53–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse.Cognitive Psychology,9, 77–110.
Trabasso, T., van den Broek, P. W., &Suh, S. Y. (1989). Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in stories.Discourse Processes,12, 1–25.
Turner, A., Britton, B. K., Andraessen, P., &McCutchen, D. (1996). A predication semantic model of text comprehension and recall. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.),Models of understanding text (pp. 33–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
van Dijk, T. A., &Kintsch, W. (1983).Strategies of discourse comprehension. San Diego: Academic Press.
Vidal-Abarca, E., Gilabert, R., & Abad, N. (2001).Context variables must be considered when replicating text coherence studies. Manuscript in preparation.
Vidal-Abarca, E., Martinez, G., &Gilabert, R. (2000). Two procedures to improve instructional text: Effects on memory and learning.Journal of Educational Psychology,92, 107–116.
Vidal-Abarca, E., &Sanjosé, V. (1998). Levels of comprehension of scientific prose: The role of text variables.Learning & Instruction,8, 215–233.
Vidal-Abarca, E., Sanjosé, V., Gilabert, R., & Abad, N. (2001).Improving text coherence to enhance readers’ inferences. Manuscript in preparation.
Wineburg, S. S. (1996). The psychology of learning and teaching history. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 423–437). New York: MacMillan.
Zwaan, R. A., Langston, M. C., &Graesser, A. C. (1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model.Psychological Science,6, 292–297.
Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J.P.,& Graesser, A.C. (1994). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,21, 386–397.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
A copy of ETAT can be obtained upon request to the first author. It will be sent as a CD via ordinary mail and C.O.D. at no additional cost.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vidal-Abarca, E., Reyes, H., Gilabert, R. et al. ETAT: Expository Text Analysis Tool. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 34, 93–107 (2002). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195428
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195428