Are You Talking to Me?: Multi-Dimensional Language Analysis of Explanations during Reading

This study examines the extent to which instructions to self-explain vs. other-explain a text lead readers to produce different forms of explanations. Natural language processing was used to examine the content and characteristics of the explanations produced as a function of instruction condition. Undergraduate students (n = 146) typed either self-explanations or other-explanations while reading a science text. The linguistic properties of these explanations were calculated using three automated text analysis tools. Machine learning classifiers in combination with the features were used to predict instruction condition (i.e., self- or other-explanation). The best machine learning model performed at rates above chance (kappa = .247; accuracy = 63%). Follow-up analyses indicated that students in the self-explanation condition generated explanations that were more cohesive and that contained words that were more related to social order (e.g., ethics). Overall, the results suggest that natural language processing techniques can be used to detect subtle differences in students' processing of complex texts.

[1]  Scott Crossley,et al.  The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): version 2.0 , 2017, Behavior Research Methods.

[2]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Cohesion Relationships in Tutorial Dialogue as Predictors of Affective States , 2009, AIED.

[3]  Danielle S McNamara,et al.  iSTART: Interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[4]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Changes in Reading Strategies as a Function of Reading Training: A Comparison of Live and Computerized Training , 2005 .

[5]  T. Lombrozo The structure and function of explanations , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  D. McNamara SERT: Self-Explanation Reading Training , 2004 .

[7]  Laura K. Allen,et al.  Change your Mind: Investigating the Effects of Self-Explanation in the Resolution of Misconceptions , 2015, CogSci.

[8]  Joseph P. Magliano,et al.  Chapter 9 Toward a Comprehensive Model of Comprehension , 2009 .

[9]  Danielle S McNamara,et al.  The tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion , 2015, Behavior Research Methods.

[10]  Heather H. Mitchell,et al.  AutoTutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[11]  C. Adcock,et al.  HIGHER-ORDER FACTORS , 1964 .

[12]  M. Chi,et al.  Eliciting Self‐Explanations Improves Understanding , 1994 .

[13]  Rod D. Roscoe,et al.  Tutor learning: the role of explaining and responding to questions , 2008 .

[14]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Evaluating Self-Explanations in iSTART: Word Matching, Latent Semantic Analysis, and Topic Models , 2007 .

[15]  Laura K. Allen,et al.  Are you reading my mind?: modeling students' reading comprehension skills with natural language processing techniques , 2015, LAK.

[16]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Assessing Cognitively Complex Strategy Use in an Untrained Domain , 2010, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[17]  Jane Oakhill,et al.  Higher Order Factors in Comprehension Disability: Processes and Remediation , 2013 .

[18]  Danielle S McNamara,et al.  Sentiment Analysis and Social Cognition Engine (SEANCE): An automatic tool for sentiment, social cognition, and social-order analysis , 2017, Behavior research methods.

[19]  Laura K. Allen,et al.  Cohesive Features of Deep Text Comprehension Processes , 2016, CogSci.

[20]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  A power primer. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[21]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  When Are Tutorial Dialogues More Effective Than Reading? , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Intelligent Tutoring Systems with Conversational Dialogue , 2001, AI Mag..