Formative feedback to transfer self‐regulation of task‐oriented reading strategies

Abstract

The study includes two experiments to analyse the effects of automatic formative feedback designed to promote the transfer of self‐regulation of strategic decisions in task‐oriented reading (e.g. answering questions from an available text). Secondary‐school students read and answered multiple‐choice comprehension questions from two texts having them available while receiving consistent feedback about their performance and strategic decisions. Then, they read a different text and answered questions also with the text available, but receiving no feedback. In Experiment 1, we tested two feedback procedures that differed in task conditions and the feedback information associated to these conditions. The most effective was a procedure that forced students to select relevant text information to answer each question and provided accurate feedback based on that selection. Experiment 2 was designed to disentangle the role played by the selection task from that played by the feedback provided. We found that the two components contribute to transfer the self‐regulation strategies, although each one has a specific role for different strategies. Theoretical and practical implications of the studies are discussed.

Supporting secondary school students' reading comprehension in computer environments: A systematic review

“…Effect sizes were displayed in three studies, and in two studies, the effect sizes could be calculated based on mean pretest and posttest scores, standard deviations, and the number of participants (for Clay et al, 2009;Fry & Gosky, 2007). The partial eta-squared value (ƞ 2 = .01) in the article of Llorens et al (2016) was transformed to…”

“…The remaining study by Llorens et al (2016) only provided support after students finished the task. The remaining study by Llorens et al (2016) only provided support after students finished the task.…”

“…To study the content of the support, we coded the support mentioned in the articles based on the learning strategy categories inDonker et al (2014). Scaffolding was most effective when participants already had selected relevant text information to answer each question Llorens et al (2016). Because the articles often did not label the support as being cognitive, metacognitive, or motivational, and not every article in this review clearly described what kind of support had been given, in most cases, we had to assign the content of the support to one of the three aforementioned categories ourselves.…”

“…for learning. addressed cognitive support by checking potentially redundant and irrelevant sentences in a summary, and by providing information about content coverage Llorens et al (2016). addressed cognitive support by checking potentially redundant and irrelevant sentences in a summary, and by providing information about content coverage Llorens et al (2016).…”

“…Reading Detectives only received support afterwards. The remaining study by Llorens et al (2016) only provided support after students finished the task.…”