Zur Kurzanzeige

dc.contributor.authorRüdian, Sylvio
dc.contributor.authorHeuts, Alexander
dc.contributor.authorPinkwart, Niels
dc.contributor.editorZender, Raphael
dc.contributor.editorIfenthaler, Dirk
dc.contributor.editorLeonhardt, Thiemo
dc.contributor.editorSchumacher, Clara
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-08T09:46:22Z
dc.date.available2020-09-08T09:46:22Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.isbn978-3-88579-702-9
dc.identifier.issn1617-5468
dc.identifier.urihttp://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/34171
dc.description.abstractMany question generation approaches focus on the generation process itself, but they work with single sentences as input only. Although the state of the art of question generation’s results is quite good, it cannot be used practically as the selection which sentences are worth asking for in an educational setting is currently not possible in an automated way. This limits the ability to generate interactive course materials at scale. In this paper, we conduct a study where we compare teachers’ sentence selections of texts with 9 algorithms to find the most appropriate ones concerning reading comprehension. 30 teachers compared the “winner” algorithm, Edmundson with LexRank, which was found to be the optimal algorithm according to previous literature. The result shows that Edmundson outperforms LexRank.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherGesellschaft für Informatik e.V.
dc.relation.ispartofDELFI 2020 – Die 18. Fachtagung Bildungstechnologien der Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V.
dc.relation.ispartofseriesLecture Notes in Informatics (LNI) - Proceedings, Volume P-308
dc.subjectQuestion generation
dc.subjectOnline courses
dc.subjectText summarization
dc.titleEducational Text Summarizer: Which sentences are worth asking for?en
dc.typeText/Conference Paper
dc.pubPlaceBonn
mci.reference.pages277-288
mci.conference.locationOnline
mci.conference.date14.-18. September 2020


Dateien zu dieser Ressource

Thumbnail

Zur Kurzanzeige