Using Coh-Metrix to Access Cohesion and Difficulty in High-School Textbooks
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Using Coh-Metrix to Assess Cohesion and Difficulty in High-School Textbooks Philip M. McCarthy, Erin J. Lightman, David F. Dufty, and Danielle S. McNamara Department of Psychology Memphis. TN 38152 {pmccarthy, elightman, d.dufty, d.mcnamara} @mail.psyc.memphis.edu) Table 1). The results confirmed out hypothesis: Cohesion indices were higher for science texts than for history texts (LSA, F(1, 273) = 437.72, p < .01; argument overlap, F(1, 273) = 742.07, p<.01). The FKGL difficulty index showed no significant difference between genres. Across chapters, our results suggested science texts were less cohesive near the end of units, whereas history texts tended to be more cohesive (see Table 1). Our study suggests that Coh-Metrix can facilitate sophisticated analysis of texts, helping to establish benchmarks and typical patterns of textual cohesion and difficulty. With greater understanding of cohesion between genres and across textual units, Coh-Metrix stands to offer a broader assessment of text that may better facilitate assignments of text to readers. Recent research in text processing has emphasized the importance of the cohesion of a text in comprehension (e.g., McNamara, 2001). Cohesion is the degree to which ideas in the text are explicitly related to each other and facilitate a unified situation model for the reader. Such research has led to the development of a computational tool, Coh-Metrix, (Graesser et al., 2004) that delivers over 300 indices of textual cohesion and difficulty. We hypothesized that a Coh-Metrix analysis of texts would indicate that cohesion indices - more so than traditional, shallow difficulty indices such as Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL, Klare, 1974-75) - would identify characteristics of texts. Specifically, we hypothesized that within the expository domain, science texts would demonstrate greater cohesion than history texts, as the former dealt with less familiar subjects and would be likely to employ greater redundancy. We further hypothesized that as the parts of a text (beginning, middle, and end) serve different rhetorical purposes, that the sophisticated indices of Coh-Metrix would identify these differences. To test our hypothesis, we sampled three representative 1000-word sections from the beginning, middle and end of each chapter of seven commonly used high-school text books (three from science and four from history). Each section was analyzed using Coh-Metrix indices of Cohesion (argument overlap, latent semantic analysis (LSA), and number of connectives) as well as FKGL to assess difficulty. Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Institute for Education Sciences (IES R3056020018-02). References Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193-202. Klare, G. R. (1974–1975). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 62-102. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51-62. Results and Discussion We conducted an Analysis of Variance to assess differences between genres and across textual units (see Table 1. Results for Measures of Cohesion and Difficulty Science F-K LSA AO Con History Beginning Middle End Sig Beginning Middle End Notes: standard errors are in parentheses; * p<.05; ** p<.01 Sig
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle