Examination of Different Reading Strategies with Eye Tracking Measures in Paragraph Questions

Abstract

Bu çalışmada farklı tür ve zorluklardaki çoktan seçmeli okuduğunu anlama sorularının çözümünde kullanılan iki farklı soru çözme stratejisinin başarı, soru çözme süresi, odaklanma sayısı ve okunulan alana tekrar geri dönme sayısı üzerindeki etkisinin araştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Tam deneysel olarak yürütülen bu çalışmada 28 katılımcı rastgele olarak iki gruba ayrılmıştır. Önce soru kökü stratejisini (Ö-SkS) kullanan grup, soruları önce soru kökünü okuyarak, önce paragraf stratejisini (Ö-PS) kullanan grup ise, soruları önce paragrafı okuyarak çözmüşlerdir. Çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlara göre Ö-SkS grubunun soru kökü alanında harcadığı süre, odaklanma sayısı ve okunulan alana geri dönme sayısı Ö-PS grubuna göre anlamlı olarak daha fazladır. Sonuç olarak, uygulamada yaygın olarak tavsiye edilenin aksine, paragraf sorusu çözerken önce soru kökünün okunmasının başarı ve soru çözme süresi açısından avantaj sağlamadığı gibi, Ö-SkS kullanımının soru kökü alanında harcanan süreyi, odaklanma sayısını ve okunulan alana geri dönme sayısını anlamlı derecede artırdığı ortaya çıkmıştır.

The Role of Time Constraints and Domain Knowledge in Reading Comprehension Tests: The Case of Text‐First versus Questions‐First Strategies

“…Similar to Bayrak Karsli et al (2020) and Zhao et al (2020), this study failed to replicate the benefit that Cerdán et al (2009) found for TFs over QFs in performance accuracy when test time was unlimited (see Table 1). Our students in the untimed groups were equally successful in answering the questions, whether they did or did not read the Regarding search efficiency, we found an advantage for the TFs over the QFs, consistent with Bayrak Karsli et al 's (2020) and Cerdán et al 's (2009) findings.…”

“…Two other studies, which used shorter texts and closed-ended questions, did not find a clear benefit for TFs over QFs (Bayrak Karsli et al, 2020;Zhao et al, 2020). Bayrak Karsli et al (2020) asked two groups of university students to read on a computer screen short passages and answer one multiple-choice question presented below each passage, while their eye movements were monitored.…”

“…Two other studies, which used shorter texts and closed-ended questions, did not find a clear benefit for TFs over QFs (Bayrak Karsli et al, 2020;Zhao et al, 2020). Bayrak Karsli et al (2020) asked two groups of university students to read on a computer screen short passages and answer one multiple-choice question presented below each passage, while their eye movements were monitored. One group of participants was instructed to read the whole passage before answering the question, whereas the other group was instructed to read the question stem prior to reading the passage.…”

“…Reviewing the scientific and instructional literature about effectiveness and cognitive implementation of TFs and QFs reveals inconsistent findings and contradictory recommendations, supported by different theoretical accounts (Bayrak Karsli; Cerdán et al, 2009; Demirel, & Kurşun, 2020; Rupp et al, 2006; Zhao, Schnotz, Wagner, & Gaschler, 2020). Rupp et al (2006), who reviewed test‐preparation guidebooks for standardized tests that contain reading comprehension sections (e.g., SAT, GRE), found that some guidebooks recommend reading the whole text before answering the questions (e.g., Gallagher, 2000; Sullivan, Brenner, & Zhong, 2004), whereas other guidebooks suggest reading and answering the questions prior to and while reading the text (e.g., Green & Wolf, 2000; Hinkel, 2004; Rogers, 2005; Rymniak & Shanks, 2002).…”

“…The main argument in favor of reading the whole text prior to its questions concerns the quality of mental text representation that examinees construct during the test. According to this argument, the thorough, inclusive reading employed under TFs produces a more coherent, elaborated, and complete text representation than the one produced by disorganized, fractional reading directed by test questions under QFs (Bayrak Karsli et al, 2020; Rupp et al, 2006; Salmerón et al, 2015). The high‐quality representation established under TFs enhances text comprehension and supports the production of more accurate and comprehensive answers, particularly of high‐level questions that require the integration of different pieces of text information and/or generation of inferences implied by the text (Cerdán et al, 2009).…”