Exploring the multi-dimensional human mind: Model-based and text-based approaches

IF 4.2 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Assessing Writing Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2024.100878
Min Kyu Kim , Jinho Kim , Ali Heidari
{"title":"Exploring the multi-dimensional human mind: Model-based and text-based approaches","authors":"Min Kyu Kim ,&nbsp;Jinho Kim ,&nbsp;Ali Heidari","doi":"10.1016/j.asw.2024.100878","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this study, we conceptualize two approaches, model-based and text-based, grounded on mental models and discourse comprehension theories, to computerized summary analysis. We juxtapose the model-based approach with the text-based approach to explore shared knowledge dimensions and associated measures from both approaches and use them to examine changes in students' summaries over time. We used 108 cases in which we computed model-based and text-based measures for two versions of students' summaries (i.e., initial and final revisions), resulting in a total of 216 observations. We used correlations, Principal Components Analysis (PCA), and Linear Mixed-Effects models. This exploratory investigation suggested a shortlist of text-based measures, and the findings of the PCA demonstrated that both model-based and text-based measures explained the three-dimensional model (i.e., surface, structure, and semantic). Overall, model-based measures were better for tracking changes in the surface dimension, while text-based measures were descriptive of the structure dimension. Both approaches worked well for the semantic dimension. The tested text-based measures can serve as a cross-reference to evaluate students' summaries along with the model-based measures. The current study shows the potential of using multidimensional measures to provide formative feedback on students' knowledge structure and writing styles along the three dimensions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46865,"journal":{"name":"Assessing Writing","volume":"61 ","pages":"Article 100878"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessing Writing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293524000710","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this study, we conceptualize two approaches, model-based and text-based, grounded on mental models and discourse comprehension theories, to computerized summary analysis. We juxtapose the model-based approach with the text-based approach to explore shared knowledge dimensions and associated measures from both approaches and use them to examine changes in students' summaries over time. We used 108 cases in which we computed model-based and text-based measures for two versions of students' summaries (i.e., initial and final revisions), resulting in a total of 216 observations. We used correlations, Principal Components Analysis (PCA), and Linear Mixed-Effects models. This exploratory investigation suggested a shortlist of text-based measures, and the findings of the PCA demonstrated that both model-based and text-based measures explained the three-dimensional model (i.e., surface, structure, and semantic). Overall, model-based measures were better for tracking changes in the surface dimension, while text-based measures were descriptive of the structure dimension. Both approaches worked well for the semantic dimension. The tested text-based measures can serve as a cross-reference to evaluate students' summaries along with the model-based measures. The current study shows the potential of using multidimensional measures to provide formative feedback on students' knowledge structure and writing styles along the three dimensions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索多维人类思维:基于模型和基于文本的方法
在本研究中,我们以心智模型和话语理解理论为基础,将基于模型和基于文本的两种方法概念化,用于计算机化摘要分析。我们将基于模型的方法与基于文本的方法并列,以探索这两种方法的共享知识维度和相关测量方法,并用它们来研究学生摘要随时间的变化。我们使用了 108 个案例,对两个版本的学生总结(即初始和最终修订版)计算了基于模型和基于文本的测量值,共得出 216 个观测值。我们使用了相关分析、主成分分析(PCA)和线性混合效应模型。这项探索性调查提出了一份基于文本的衡量标准短名单,PCA 的结果表明,基于模型的衡量标准和基于文本的衡量标准都能解释三维模型(即表面、结构和语义)。总体而言,基于模型的测量方法更适合跟踪表面维度的变化,而基于文本的测量方法则能描述结构维度的变化。这两种方法在语义维度上都有很好的效果。经过测试的基于文本的测量方法可以作为交叉参考,与基于模型的测量方法一起评估学生的摘要。目前的研究表明,使用多维度测量方法可以对学生在三个维度上的知识结构和写作风格提供形成性反馈。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Assessing Writing
Assessing Writing Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
17.90%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Assessing Writing is a refereed international journal providing a forum for ideas, research and practice on the assessment of written language. Assessing Writing publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges concerning writing assessments of all kinds, including traditional (direct and standardised forms of) testing of writing, alternative performance assessments (such as portfolios), workplace sampling and classroom assessment. The journal focuses on all stages of the writing assessment process, including needs evaluation, assessment creation, implementation, and validation, and test development.
期刊最新文献
A comparative study of voice in Chinese English-major undergraduates’ timed and untimed argument writing The impact of task duration on the scoring of independent writing responses of adult L2-English writers A structural equation investigation of linguistic features as indices of writing quality in assessed secondary-level EMI learners’ scientific reports Detecting and assessing AI-generated and human-produced texts: The case of second language writing teachers Validating an integrated reading-into-writing scale with trained university students
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1