1 / 12

Search and Comprehension Processes in Learning from Text

Search and Comprehension Processes in Learning from Text. Cerdán, R ., Vidal-Abarca, E ., Gil, L ., Gilabert, R ., & Martínez, T. University of Valencia. Comprehension & Learning from Text. Adjunct Questions: Aids for Comprehension & Learning.

edric
Download Presentation

Search and Comprehension Processes in Learning from Text

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Search and Comprehension Processes in Learning from Text Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Gil, L., Gilabert, R., & Martínez, T. University of Valencia

  2. Comprehension & Learning from Text • Adjunct Questions: Aids for Comprehension & Learning • Search tasks in complex documents ( Rouet & Tricot, 1998) • Evaluation (E):search goal & strategy • Selection (S):selection of information units • Processing (P):extraction of relevant information • Iterations of E-S-P cycles • Pattern of search (Rouet, Vidal-Abarca, Bert-Erlboul & Millogo, 2001) • High level questions: Review & Integrate • Low level questions: Locate & Memorize

  3. Previous experiment to study Search & Comprehension processes(Vidal-Abarca, et al., 2002) • 22 University students • 2 groups: high vs. low level questions • Task: (on a computer screen) • Reading long science text (1800 words) + • Searching info to Answer (HL vs. LL) questions • Reading the question • Re-reading the text (if neened) • Writing the answer Cycles

  4. Answering questions at a good level implied: • Reading questions fewer times. • Selecting lower number of text segments (relevant + non-relevant for the questions) • Reading more relevant segments. • Fewer answering cycles. Main results High level questions: • Reading questions more times and selecting more text segments (relevant + non-relevant) Low level questions: • Reading questions fewer times and selecting fewer text segments (relevant + non-relevant)

  5. Current experiment New Situation: searching info to answer (HL vs LL) Qs, but NO prior reading text GOAL: replicate prior results? • Search & comprehension processes in answering questions at good vs.poor level? • Search patterns to answer high vs. low level questions?

  6. Procedure • 16 University students. • 2 groups: high level vs. low level questions • Task: on a computer screen (Read & Answer) • Searching info to Answer (HL vs. LL) questions • Reading the question • Reading the text • Writing the answer Cycles

  7. Read&Answer 1. Reading the question 2. Searching info to answer Q

  8. Design ANOVAs 2x2: Type of question x Comprehension (Answering level) • High L Q: Integrating distant information + many inferences • Low L Q:Locating especific information + few or no inferences. • Good comprehension (highest third score) • Poor comprension (lowest third score)

  9. On line measures Evaluation Phase: • Number of times reading the questions. • Time spent reading the questions. • Word reading time per visit. Selection Phase: • Number of total paragraphs visited. • Number of relevant paragraphs. • % of relevant paragraphs. Processing Phase: • % of time reading relevant segments within each question. Control Processes: • Number of QTW cycles: Q (reading the question), T (reading the text), W (writing an answer),

  10. Evaluation phase: Times reading questions Processing phase: % of time reading relevant segments Selection phase: % of relevant segments Executive control processes: number of QTW cycles

  11. Summary • Reading questions fewer times. • Selecting a higher percentage of relevant segments ( especially in low level questions) • Fewer answering cycles. Answering at a Good vs. Poor level: High vs.low level questions: • High level: Reading questions more times, selecting more segments (relevant + non-relevant) and using more QTW cycles. • Low level: Reading questions fewer times, selecting fewer text segments and using fewer QTW cycles.

  12. Conclusions • Good comprehenders: effective search pattern • Poor comprehenders: loss in search task • Pattern for High level questions: Review&Integrate • Pattern for Low level questions: Locate&Memorize

More Related