Exploring an intelligent tutoring system as a conversation-based assessment tool for reading comprehension

被引:0
作者
Shi G. [1 ]
Lippert A.M. [1 ]
Shubeck K. [1 ]
Fang Y. [1 ]
Chen S. [1 ]
Pavlik P., Jr. [1 ]
Greenberg D. [2 ]
Graesser A.C. [1 ]
机构
[1] University of Memphis, Memphis, 38152, TN
[2] Georgia State University Atlanta, Atlanta, 30302, GA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Adult readers; Assessment; AutoTutor; Intelligent tutoring systems; Reading comprehension;
D O I
10.1007/s41237-018-0065-9
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Reading comprehension is often assessed by having students read passages and administering a test that assesses their understanding of the text. Shorter assessments may fail to give a full picture of comprehension ability while more thorough ones can be time consuming and costly. This study used data from a conversational intelligent tutoring system (AutoTutor) to assess reading comprehension ability in 52 low-literacy adults who interacted with the system. We analyzed participants’ accuracy and time spent answering questions in conversations in lessons that targeted four theoretical components of comprehension: Word, Textbase, Situation Model, and Rhetorical Structure. Accuracy and answer response time were analyzed to track adults’ proficiency for comprehension components, and we analyzed whether the four components predicted reading grade level. We discuss the results with respect to the advantages that a conversational intelligent tutoring system assessment may provide over traditional assessment tools and the linking of theory to practice in adult literacy. © 2018, The Author(s).
引用
收藏
页码:615 / 633
页数:18
相关论文
共 43 条
  • [1] Baayen R.H., Davidson D.J., Bates D.M., Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items, J Mem Lang, 59, 4, pp. 390-412, (2008)
  • [2] Baker L., Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader, Educ Psychol Rev, 1, 1, pp. 3-38, (1989)
  • [3] Bates D., Machler M., Bolker B., Walker S., Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Lme4, (2014)
  • [4] Bohn-Gettler C.M., Does monitoring event changes improve comprehension?, Discourse Process, 51, pp. 398-425, (2014)
  • [5] Carretti B., Borella E., Cornoldi C., De Beni R., Role of working memory in explaining the performance of individuals with specific reading comprehension difficulties: a meta-analysis, Learn Individ Diff, 19, 2, pp. 246-251, (2009)
  • [6] Clark H.H., The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: a critique of language statistics in psychological research, J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav, 12, 4, pp. 335-359, (1973)
  • [7] Cutting L.E., Scarborough H.S., Prediction of reading comprehension: relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured, Sci Stud Read, 10, 3, pp. 277-299, (2006)
  • [8] Fletcher J.M., Measuring reading comprehension, Sci Stud Read, 10, 3, pp. 323-330, (2006)
  • [9] Goldhammer F., Naumann J., Greiff S., More is not always better: the relation between item response and item response time in Raven’s matrices, J Intell, 3, 1, pp. 21-40, (2015)
  • [10] Graesser A.C., Deeper learning with advances in discourse science and technology, Policy Insights Behav Brain Sci, 2, 1, pp. 42-50, (2015)