2018
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-93843-1_20
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Students’ Academic Language Use When Constructing Scientific Explanations in an Intelligent Tutoring System

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
3
0
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
1
3
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Our AMLTS affective interaction design significantly improves learner engagement, collaborative discussion, and language learning performance, which is consistent with previous studies ( Li et al, 2018 ; Mosa et al, 2018 ; Bakeer and Abu-Naser, 2019 ; Tafazoli et al, 2019 ; Demir, 2020 ). The results indicated that both the pretest and posttest results were significantly improved in the AMLTS.…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Our AMLTS affective interaction design significantly improves learner engagement, collaborative discussion, and language learning performance, which is consistent with previous studies ( Li et al, 2018 ; Mosa et al, 2018 ; Bakeer and Abu-Naser, 2019 ; Tafazoli et al, 2019 ; Demir, 2020 ). The results indicated that both the pretest and posttest results were significantly improved in the AMLTS.…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Automated assessment techniques that attend to different components of written language (i.e., syntax, coherence, etc.) can be used to assess the quality of language use within written scientific explanations (Li, Gobert, Dickler, & Morad, 2018; Wiley et al, 2017). Automated text analysis tools, such as Coh-Metrix (Graesser et al, 2014), capture different components of written language.…”
Section: Automated Assessment For Writingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Coh-Metrix can extract hundreds of language features at multiple textual levels from the word level to the sentence, paragraph, text, and genre (Graesser & McNamara, 2011). Although Coh-Metrix can assess the cohesion, causality, and lexical diversity of written explanations (Li, Gobert, Dickler, & Morad, 2018; Wiley et al, 2017), its performance is generally lower than the regular expression approaches (Li et al, 2017a). Because linguistic features do not attend to the content of student writing (they focus solely on the use of language), these features are limited in terms of their ability to capture the variety of issues students confront when writing scientific explanations.…”
Section: Automated Assessment For Writingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…O processo de escrita acadêmica, entretanto, é uma tarefa desafiadora, sendo notórias as dificuldades apresentadas pelos alunos para organizar, escrever e revisar os seus textos. Neste sentido, é necessário considerar que os primeiros contatos dos estudantes com a escrita científica ocorrem no ambiente acadêmico, onde grande parte deles apresenta significativa inexperiência quanto aos gêneros, procedimentos e convenções acadêmicas (LI et al, 2018) KAUF, 2018). Desta forma, no momento em que o aluno confronta-se com a necessidade de construir um texto acadêmico, ele percebe que esta atividade demanda conhecimentos mais específicos e aprofundados do que a escrita cotidiana (LIN; LIU; WANG, 2017) (LI et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionunclassified