Comprehension processes on question-answering activities: A think-aloud study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v20i56.3776Palabras clave:
comprehension, question-answering, think-aloud, meaning-making, metacognitionResumen
Introduction. Students often answer questions from available expository texts for assessment and learning purposes. These activities require readers to activate not only meaning-making processes (e.g., paraphrases or elaborations), but also metacognitive operations (e.g., monitoring readers’ own comprehension or self-regulating reading behaviors) in order to successfully use textual information to meet the task demands. The aim of the study was to explore the meaning-making processes readers activate while answering questions and using textual information at hand, and how they monitor and control the processing of these tasks.
Method. Forty eighth graders read two expository texts and answered ten multiple-choice comprehension questions per text. For each question, participants were forced to select the relevant pieces of textual information to provide the correct answer. Further, participants thought aloud in one of the texts, whereas they performed the task in silence in the other. This reading scenario served to collect valuable data on the reader’s question-answering process. The task was administered individually on a computer-based environment, which allowed recording the students’ reading behavior online.
Results. Results showed processing differences between the two recursive steps of question-answering. While reading the question readers mainly restated information and focused on monitoring the comprehension of the questions and their correspondence with the alternatives. However, they tended to paraphrase and assess textual relevance when searching the text. The study also reveals that think-aloud methodology affected these processes and outcomes differently.
Discussion and Conclusion. This study advances on our knowledge of cognitive and metacognitive processes involved in answering questions from an available text, a task extensively used to measure reading literacy skills as well as for learning purposes in academic settings. It shows how readers activate meaning-making processes while reading questions and searching the text for task-relevant information, and how they monitor the question-answering process. The study also reveals that think-aloud methodology may affect these processes differently. Apart from advancing our theoretical knowledge, our study also has important practical applications for the assessment of reading literacy skills.
Descargas
Citas
Anderson, J. R. (2015). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Worth Publishers.
Bjork, E. L., Little, J. L., & Storm, B. C. (2014). Multiple-choice testing as a desirable difficulty in the classroom. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 165-170. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.03.002.
Cerdán, R., Gilabert, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2011). Selecting information to answer questions: Strategic individual differences when searching texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 201–205. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.007
Cerdán, R., Pérez, A., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Rouet, J-F. (2019). To answer questions from text, one has to understand what the question is asking: Differential effects of question aids as a function of com-prehension skill. Reading and Writing, 32, 2111–2124. doi:10.1007/s11145-019-09943-w
Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 209–222.
Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25(1), 1-53. doi:10.1080/01638539809545019
Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. CA: Sage Publications.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Farr, R., Pritchard, R., & Smitten, B. (1990). A description of what happens when an examinee takes a multiple-choice reading comprehension test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(3), 209-226. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1990.tb00744.x
Ferrer, A., Vidal-Abarca, E., Serrano, M-Á., & Gilabert, R. (2017). Impact of text availability and question format on reading comprehension processes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 404-415. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.10.002
Fox, M. C., Ericsson, K. A., & Best, R. (2011). Do procedures for verbal reporting of thinking have to be reactive? A meta-analysis and recommendations for best reporting methods. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 316-344. doi:10.1037/a0021663
Gil, L., Martínez, T., & Vidal-Abarca (2015). Online assessment of strategic reading literacy skills. Com-puters & Education, 82, 50–59. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.026
Hannon, B. & Daneman, M. (2004). Shallow semantic processing of text: An individual-differences ac-count. Discourse Processes, 37(3), 187-204. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3703_1
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) (2016). PIRLS 2016 As-sessment Framework. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/framework.html
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lane, S. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2004). Skimming the surface: Verbal overshadowing of analogical retrieval. Psychological Science, 15(11), 715-719. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00747.x
Llorens, A. C., Gil, L., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Mañá, A., & Gilabert, R. (2011). Evaluación de la competencia lectora: la prueba de Competencia Lectora para Educación Secundaria (CompLEC). Psicothema, 23(4), 808-817.
Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 21(3), 251–283. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2103_02
Martínez, T., Vidal-Abarca, E., Gil, L., & Gilabert, R. (2009). On-line assessment of comprehension pro-cesses. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12, 308-319. doi:10.1017/S1138741600001700
Martínez, T., Vidal-Abarca, E., Sellés, P., & Gilabert, R. (2008). Evaluation of comprehension strategies and processes: Test of Comprehension Processes (TCP). Infancia y Aprendizaje, 31(3), 319-332.
McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 113 –139. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Self-explanations and metacognition. In D. Hacker, J. Dun-losky and A. C. Graesser (Eds.). Handbook of metacognition (pp. 60-81). NY: Routledge.
McNamara, D. S., O’Reilly, T. P., Best, R. M., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ read-ing comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 147-171.
Naumann, J., & Goldhammer, F. (2017). Time-on-task effects in digital reading are non-linear and moderated by persons' skills and tasks' demands. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 1-16. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2016.10.002
Ness, M. (2011). Explicit reading comprehension instruction in elementary classrooms: Teacher use of reading comprehension strategies. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25, 98–117. doi:10.1080/02568543.2010.531076
OECD (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: a framework for PISA 2006. París: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264026407-en
OECD (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume I). Paris: OECD. doi:10.1787/9789264091450-en
OECD (2013). Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD. doi:10.1787/eag-2013-en
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading. The nature of constructively responsive reading. NL: LEA.
Rouet, J-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers' representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200-215. doi:10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015
Rupp, A. A., Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: a cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing, 23(4), 441-474. doi:10.1191/0265532206lt337oa
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and In-struction, 4(4), 295–312. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
Vidal-Abarca, E., Gilabert, R., & Abad, N. (2002). Una propuesta para hacer buenos textos expositivos: hacia una tecnología del texto expositivo. Infancia y Aprendizaje: Journal for the Study of Educa-tion and Development, 25(4), 499-514. doi:10.1174/021037002762064064
Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 817-826. doi:10.1037/a0020062
Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Gil, L., García, A., & Mañez, I. (2019). Learning tasks in electronic envi-ronments: Advances towards interactive etextbooks. In K. Millis, D. L. Long, J. P. Magliano, and K. Wiemer, (Eds.), Deep comprehension: Multidisciplinary approaches to understanding, enhanc-ing and measuring comprehension (pp. 99-113). NY: Routledge.
Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Salmerón, L., Cerdán, R., Gilabert, R., Gil, L., Mañá, A., Llorens, A., & Ferris, R. (2011). Recording on-line processes in task-oriented reading with Read&Answer. Behav-ior Research Methods, 43(1), 179–192. doi:10.3758/s13428-010-0032-1
Vidal-Abarca, E., Reyes, H., Gilabert, R., Calpe, J., Soria, E., & Graesser, A. C. (2002). ETAT: Expository Text Analysis Tool. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(1), 93-107. doi:10.3758/BF03195428
Wolfe, M. B., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467-502. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2304_2
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
La revista se publica bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-No Comercial-Sin Obra Derivada 4.0
