STRATEGIC READING DECISIONS AND PERFORMANCE IN PISA-LIKE READING LITERACY TASKS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.19042Keywords:
Reading comprehension, reader text relationship, text structure, search strategies, cognitive style.Abstract
The uneven performance found between continuous and non-continuoustexts in reading literacy tasks in some countries of the PISA 2009 report
(OECD, 2010), as well as the different nature and structure of the textual information, have motivated the study of on-line processing of both types of texts in order to explore what happens when they are used to answer questions. This research examines both, the strategic search decisions used by students when answering questions in PISA-like reading literacy tasks, and the consistency of their use in continuous and non-continuous texts. For this purpose, two standardized reading comprehension tests were applied to 112 students from grades 6 to 8. The first test included two continuous expository texts, whereas the second included five texts, three continuous and two non-continuous. Students read the texts and answered the questions with a software called Read&Answer (Vidal-Abarca, Martínez, Salmerón, Cerdán, & others, 2011) that recorded the students’ strategic decisions and performance. Student scores in non-continuous
texts were lower than those found in the continuous. Nevertheless, data
confirms that students were more likely to reread the non-continuous texts
more often than continuous texts in order to give an answer. Furthermore,
students showed a significant degree of consistency in their strategic decisions between text formats. The lower performance in non-continuous texts and the higher number of re-readings to answer questions could indicate lower skills when applying strategies related to the interpretation of non-continuous texts compared to continuous text. We discuss the instructional implications of these results, emphasizing the importance of teaching specific procedures for understanding non-continuous texts through different subjects.
Downloads
References
Busato, V V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J. & Hamaker, C. (1998). The relationship between learning styles, the big five personality traits and achievement motivation in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 129-140.
Carpenter, P. & Shah, P. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 75-100.
Ellis, D., Ford, N. & Wood, F. (1993). Hypertext and styles. The Electronic Library, 11(1), 13-18.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M. & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
Hosford, C. C. & Siders, W. A. (2010). Felder-Soloman’s index of learning styles: Internal consistency, temporal stability, and factor structure. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 22(4), 298-303.
Keefe, J W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. En J. W. Keefe (Ed.), Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 1-17). Reston: NASSP.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowleddiscourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Körner, C. (2004). Sequential processing in comprehension of hierarchical graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 467-480.
Körner, C. (2011). Eye movements reveal distinct search and reasoning processes in comprehension of complex graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 893-905.
Korthauer, R. D. & Koubek, R. J. (1994). An empirical evaluation of knowledge, cognitive style, and structure upon performance of hypertext task. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 6(4), 373-390.
Loo, R. (1997). Evaluating change and stability in learning style scores: A methodological concern. Educational Psychology, 17(1-2), 95-100.
Llorens, A. C., Gil, L., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, E., Mañá, A. y Gilabert, R., (2011). Prueba de Competencia Lectora para Educación Secundaria (CompLEC). Psicothema, 23(4), 808-817.
Mañá, A., Vidal-Abarca, E., Domínguez, C., Gil, L. y Cerdán, R. (2009). Papel de los procesos metacognitivos en una tarea de pregunta-respuesta con textos escritos. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 32, 553-565.
Martinez, T., Vidal-Abarca, E., Sellés, P. y Gilabert, R. (2008). Evaluación de estrategias y procesos de comprensión: El test de procesos de comprensión. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 31, 319-332.
Minnaert, A. & Van der Hulst, F. (2000, September). A comparison of the (in) stability of student learning patterns in a traditional versus a student oriented learning environment. Paper presented at the international conference on «Innovations in higher education 2000,» Helsinki, Finland.
Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos - OCDE (2002). Muestra de reactivos empleados en la evaluación PISA 2000. Madrid: Santillana. Recuperado de https://goo.gl/GXwBWB
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development-OECD (2009). PISA 2009 Assessment Framework-Key Competencies in Reading, Mathematics and Science. París: OECD.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - OECD (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do - Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume I). París: OECD.
Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. En R. Frele (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (pp. 73-126). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pozo, J. I. y Postigo, J. (2000). Los procedimientos como contenidos escolares. Uso estratégico de la información. Barcelona: Edebé.
Sánchez, E., González, J. A. y García, R. (2002). Competencia retórica. Una propuesta para interpretar las dificultades de comprensión. Psicothema, 14, 77-85.
Sanz, A. (2005). La lectura en el proyecto PISA. Revista de Educación, núm. extraordinario 2005, 95-120.
Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. En R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49-70). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shah, P. (2001). Graph comprehension: The role of format, content, and individual differences. En M. Anderson, B. Meyer, & P. Olivier (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and reasoning (pp. 173-185). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Vermetten, Y. J., Vermunt, J. D. & Lodewijks, H. G. (1999). A longitudinal perspective on learning strategies in higher education: different viewpoints towards development, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 221-242.
Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 149-171.
Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A. & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 817.
Vidal-Abarca, E., Salmerón, L. & Mañá, A. (2011). Individual differences in task-oriented reading. En M. T. Mc-Crudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 267-294). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, 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, 43, 179-192.
Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Salmerón, L., Gilabert, R., Llorens, A. C. & Mañá, A. (2011). CompLEC: A technological tool to assess task-oriented reading skills of high-school students. Paper presented at the 14 Biennal Conference EARLI 2011, Exeter, UK.
Wood, F., Ford, N., Miller, D., Sobczyk, G. & Duffin, R. (1996) Information skills searching behaviour and cognitive styles for student-centred learning: a computer assisted learning approach. Journal of Information Sciences, 22(2), 79-92.
Downloads
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Educación XX1 is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0)
