Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:13:20.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategic Decisions in Task-Oriented Reading

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2015

Ladislao Salmerón ,
Eduardo Vidal-Abarca ,
Tomás Martínez ,
Amelia Mañá ,
Laura Gil  and
Johannes Naumann
Ladislao Salmerón*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Valencia (Spain)
Eduardo Vidal-Abarca
Affiliation:
Universidad de Valencia (Spain)
Tomás Martínez
Affiliation:
Universidad de Valencia (Spain)
Amelia Mañá
Affiliation:
Universidad de Valencia (Spain)
Laura Gil
Affiliation:
Universidad de Valencia (Spain)
Johannes Naumann
Affiliation:
German Institute for International Educational Research (Germany)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ladislao Salmerón. Universidad de Valencia. Avda. Blasco Ibáñez, 21. 46010. Valencia (Spain). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Answering questions from texts are assessment and instructional activities that are frequently used in schools. Nevertheless, little is known about the strategic processes that students take while performing these tasks. We explored the amount and frequency that students initially read of a text before they answered questions pertaining to the material. In a procedure similar to the one used in the PISA (Program for International Students Assessment), one-hundred-seventy students between 7th and 9th grade read and answered several questions designed to assess task-oriented reading in three specific texts. We recorded on-line indexes that evaluated student behavior (e.g., the amount of text that students read before answering questions raised within a given text), performance, and comprehension skill. The results revealed that students skilled in comprehension initially read a high proportion of the texts, which in turn improved their overall performance in two of the three texts read (text 1: CI95%: 0.01 to 0.09; text 2: CI95%: –0.01 to 0.05; text 3: CI95%: 0.04 to 0.20). Therefore, we conclude that this strategic behavior should be considered during the assessment and instruction of reading literacy.

Keywords

reading comprehension assessmentreading literacytask-oriented reading
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 18 , 2015 , E102
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bednarik, R., & Tukiainen, M. (2007). Validating the restricted focus viewer: A study using eye-movement tracking. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 274–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193158 Google Scholar
Cataldo, M. G., & Oakhill, J. (2000). Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into the effects of text representation and spatial memory on the ability to locate information in text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 791–799. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92 Google Scholar
Cerdán, R., Gilabert, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2010). Estrategias de selección de información en tareas de contestación a preguntas [Information selection strategies in question-answering tasks]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 33, 449–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/021037010793139626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, M., Gilabert, R., & Gil, L. (2009). Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension. Learning & Instruction, 19, 13–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairchild, A. J., MacKinnon, D. P., Taborga, M. P., & Taylor, A. B. (2009). R2 effect-size measures for mediation analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 486–498. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.486 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallagher, N. (2000). DELTA’s key to the TOEFL test. McHenry, IL: Delta.Google Scholar
Green, S. W., & Wolf, I. K. (2000). How to prepare for the GRE. Hauppauge, NY: Barron.Google Scholar
Hinkel, E. (2004). TOEFL test strategies. Hauppauge, NY: Barron.Google Scholar
Jansen, A. R., Blackwell, A. F., & Marriot, K. (2003). A tool for tracking visual attention: The restricted focus viewer. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 35, 57–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03195497 Google Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122−149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122 Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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) [Assessment of reading literacy: Test of reading literacy for secondary education (CompLEC)]. Psicothema, 23, 808–817.Google Scholar
Mañá, A., Vidal-Abarca, E., Domínguez, C., Gil, L., & Cerdán, R. (2009). Papel de los procesos metacognitivos en una tarea de pregunta-respuesta con textos escritos [The role of metacognitive processes involved in a question-answer task with written texts]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 32, 553–565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/021037009789610412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez, T., Vidal-Abarca, E., Gil, L., & Gilaber, R. (2009). On-line assessment of comprehension processes. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12, 308–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600001700 Google Scholar
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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Kambe, G. (2005). The effect of relevance instructions on reading time and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 88–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.88 Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In Ross, B. (Ed), The psychology of learning and motivation, (Vol. 51, pp. 297–284). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
OECD (2009). PISA 2009 Assessment framework – Key competencies in reading, mathematics, and science. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD (2010). Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). Retrieved from OECD Webpage www.oecd.org/els/employment/piaac Google Scholar
Ozuru, Y., Best, R., Bell, C., Witherspoon, A., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Influence of question format and text availability on the assessment of expository text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 25, 399–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370000701632371 Google Scholar
Payne, S. J., & Reader, W. R. (2006). Constructing structure maps of multiple on-line texts. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64, 461–474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Statistics, 42, 185–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, R. E., Trathen, W., Sawyer, M. L., & Shepard, C. R. (1993). Causal and epiphenomenal use of the selective attention strategy in prose comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 258–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1993.1020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, T., Isberner, M.-B., Naumann, J., & Neeb, Y. (2013) Lexical quality and reading comprehension in primary school children. Scientific Studies of Reading. 17, 415–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.764879 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, B. (2005). TOEFL success. Lawrenceville, NJ: Thomson Peterson’s.Google Scholar
Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
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, 441–447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt337oa Google Scholar
Rymniak, M., & Shanks, J. (2002). TOEFL CBT exam. New York, NY: Kaplan.Google Scholar
Salmerón, L., Cerdán, R., & Naumann, J. (2015). How adolescents navigate Wikipedia to answer questions [¿ Cómo navegan los adolescentes en Wikipedia para contestar preguntas?]. Infancia y Aprendizaje: Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 38, 435–471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2015.1016750 Google Scholar
Salmerón, L., Naumann, J., García, V., & Fajardo, I. (in press). Scanning and deep processing of information in hypertext: An eye-tracking and cued retrospective think-aloud study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.Google Scholar
Sullivan, P. N., Brenner, G. A., & Zhong, G. L. Q. (2004). Master the TOEFL 2005. Lawrenceville, NJ: Thomson/Peterson.Google Scholar
Tzeng, Y., van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & Lee, C. (2005). The computational implementation of the landscape model: Modeling inferential processes and memory representations of text comprehension. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 277–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03192695 Google Scholar
van den Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartmann, E. (1995). The role of readers’ standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In Lorch, R. F., & O'Brien, E. J. (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 353–373). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. In van Oostendorp, H. & Goldman, S. R. (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vidal-Abarca, E., Gilabert, R., Martínez, T., Sellés, P., Abad, N., & Ferrer, C. (2007). TEC. Test de Estrategias de Comprensión [Test of Comprehension Strategies]. Madrid, Spain: ICCE.Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0032-1 Google Scholar
Vidal-Abarca, E., Salmerón, L., & Mañá, A. (2011). Individual differences in task-oriented reading. In McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text. (pp. 267–294) Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar