Self-generated explanations on the question demands are not always helpful

  1. Cerdán Otero, Raquel 1
  2. Gilabert Pérez, Ramiro 1
  3. Vidal-Abarca Gámez, Eduardo 1
  1. 1 Universitat de València
    info

    Universitat de València

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/043nxc105

Revista:
The Spanish Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 1138-7416

Año de publicación: 2013

Número: 16

Páginas: 1-11

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1017/SJP.2013.45 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: The Spanish Journal of Psychology

Resumen

This study had two main purposes. First, to measure high-school students� task model representation under the instruction to self-explain questions; second, to test the effects of self-generated explanations on task-demands understanding and performance on questions. We designed a simple experimental situation where high-school students were asked to read two texts and answer questions. Only in half of the questions students were required to self-explain with their own words what the question was asking them for before answering. Contrary to our expectations, self-explaining the questions did not significantly affect skilled comprehenders, whereas it hindered performance in less-skilled comprehenders. Moreover, it inhibited their active engagement in search for textual units of information. Less-skilled comprehenders� explanation protocols included inaccuracies, with consequences on the search process and success in the task. The relationship among quality of task model, search for information and success is discussed in light of the TRACE model (Rouet, 2006).

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Best R., Ozuru Y., & McNamara D. S. (2004). Self-explaining science texts: Strategies, knowledge, and reading skill. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Embracing diversity in the Learning Sciences (pp. 89-96). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Cerdán R., & Vidal-Abarca E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 209-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.209.
  • Cerdán R., Vidal-Abarca E., Martínez T., Gilabert R., & Gil L. (2009). Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 19, 13-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.12.003.
  • Cerdán R., Gilabert R., & Vidal-Abarca E. (2011). Selecting information to answer questions: Strategic individual differences when searching texts. Learning and Iindividual differences, 21, 201-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.007.
  • Chi M., Bassok M., Lewis M. W., Reimann R., & Glaser R. (1989). Self-explanation: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(89)90002-5.
  • Chi M. T. H., de Leeuw N., Chiu M., & LaVancher C. (1994). Eliciting self explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1803-3.
  • Glenberg A. M., Wilkinson A. C., & Epstein W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 10, 597-602. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03202442.
  • Graesser A. C., & Franklin S. P. (1990). QUEST: A model of question-answering. Discourse Processes, 13, 279-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638539009544760.
  • Graesser A. C., Singer M., & Trabasso T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.101.3.371.
  • Hannon B., & Daneman M. (2004). Shallow semantic processing of text: An individual-differences account. Discourse Processes, 37, 187-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3703-1.
  • Kintsch W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Magliano J. P., & Millis K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 251-283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2103-02.
  • McCrudden M. T., & Schraw G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7.
  • McNamara D. S., O'Reilly T., Best R., & Ozuru Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students' reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 147-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/1RU5-HDTJ-A5C8-JVWE.
  • McNamara D. S., & Magliano J. P. (2009). Self-explanation and meta cognition: The dynamics of reading. In J. D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Meta cognition in Education (pp. 60-81). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Oakhill J., Yuill N., & Donaldson M. (1990). Understanding of causal expressions in skilled and less skilled text comprehenders. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 401-410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1990.tb00854.x.
  • OECD (2009). PISA 2009: Assessment Framework Key Competencies in Reading, Mathematics and Science. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
  • O'Reilly T., Best R., & McNamara D. S. (2004). Self-explanation reading training: Effects for low-knowledge readers. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1053-1058). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Otero J. (2002). Noticing and fixing difficulties in understanding science texts. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 281-307). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Ozuru Y., Best R., & McNamara D. S. (2004). Contribution of reading skill to learning from expository texts. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1071-1076). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Rouet J. F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Rubman C., & Waters H. (2000) A, B Seeing: The role of constructive processes in children's comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 503-514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.503.
  • van den Broek P., Risdem K., & Husebye-Hatmann E. (1995). The role of readers' standard for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O'Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in text comprehension (pp. 353-373). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Vidal-Abarca E., Gilabert R., Martínez T., Sellés P., Abad N., & Ferrer C. (2007) TEC. Test de Estrategias de Comprensión. Madrid, Spain: ICCE.
  • Vidal-Abarca E., Mañá A., & Gil L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 817-826. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020062.
  • Vidal-Abarca E., Martinez T., Salmerón L., Cerdán R., Gilabert R., Gil L., Ferris R. (2011). Recording online processes in task-oriented reading with Read&Answer. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers. 43, 179-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0032-1.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet