Examining Adolescents’ Strategic Processing During Online Reading With a Question-Generating Task

Abstract

Forty-three high school students participated in an online reading task to generate a critical question on a controversial topic. Participants’ concurrent verbal reports of strategy use (i.e., information location, meaning making, source evaluation, self-monitoring) and their reading outcome (i.e., the generated question) were evaluated with scoring rubrics. Path analysis indicated that strategic meaning making coordinated with self-monitoring and source evaluation positively influenced the quality of the generated questions, whereas information-locating strategies alone contributed little to the participants’ question generation. Further, source evaluation played a positive role when readers monitored and regulated their strategies for information location and meaning making. The findings on the interplay of metacognitive, critical, and intertextual strategies in online reading are discussed with regard to research and practice.

Investigating the learning perspective of Searching as Learning, a review of the state of the art

“…From the behavioral perspective, the use of techniques to reinforce search behavior, which is learningrelated (Harasim, 2011). From the cognitivist perspective, it is usually concerned IX Congresso Brasileiro de Informática na Educação (CBIE 2020) Anais do XXXI Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação (SBIE 2020) (Lu and Hsiao, 2017), (Zhuang et al, 2016), (Mao et al, 2016), (Moraes et al, 2018), (Wilson and Wilson, 2013) Cognitivist (Kodama et al, 2017), (Moraes et al, 2018), (Taibi et al, 2017), (Wilson et al, 2016), (Syed and Collins-Thompson, 2016), (Bhattacharya and Gwizdka, 2019), (Al-Tawil et al, 2019), (Azpiazu et al, 2017), (Crescenzi, 2016), (Han et al, 2019), (Liu and Song, 2018), (Johnson, 2018), (Jansen et al, 2007), (Smith and Rieh, 2019) Constructivist (Ghosh et al, 2018), (Tibau et al, 2018b), (Freund et al, 2016), (Komlodi and Caidi, 2016), (Weingart and Eickhoff, 2016), (Tibau et al, 2018a), (Yu et al, 2018b), (Al-Tawil et al, 2019) (Ibieta et al, 2019), (Zapata et al, 2015), (Zhang, 2017), (Meyers, 2018), (Cho et al, 2017), (Vakkari et al, 2019), (Ibieta et al, 2019) about information processing, search complexity and cognitive effort. From the constructivist perspective, it can be focused on what the learner can or cannot do without help, known as the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky et al, 1978).…”

Teaching Sourcing in Upper Secondary School: A Comprehensive Sourcing Intervention With Follow‐Up Data

“…Students at different educational levels often disregard source information and pay attention only to the content when reading to comprehend and learn from diverse textual resources (Barzilai et al., ; Bråten, Strømsø, & Andreassen, ; Brem, Russell, & Weems, ; Britt & Aglinskas, ; Kiili, Laurinen, & Marttunen, ; VanSledright & Kelly, ; Wineburg, ). At the same time, correlational work has indicated that sourcing is linked to comprehension and learning outcomes (Anmarkrud, Bråten, & Strømsø, ; Barzilai & Eshet‐Alkalai, ; Bråten, Strømsø, & Britt, ; Cho, Woodward, & Li, , ; Goldman, Braasch, Wiley, Graesser, & Brodowinska, ; Strømsø, Bråten, & Britt, ; Wiley et al., ). As a consequence, interventions to promote students' sourcing when working with multiple information resources have become an increasingly important agenda for reading research during the last two decades (for recent reviews, see Brante & Strømsø, ; Bråten, Stadtler, & Salmerón, ).…”

Investigating multiple source use among students with and without dyslexia

“…Also, the previously mentioned affordance to construct the reading texts is not always an advantage. It can also be detrimental for readers because it requires a higher degree of expertise and proficiency to avoid "getting lost" (Cho, Woodward, Li, & Barlow, 2017).…”