Predictors and outcomes of behavioral engagement in the context of text comprehension: when quantity means quality

Bråten, Ivar; Latini, Natalia; Haverkamp, Ymkje E.

doi:10.1007/s11145-021-10205-x

Cited by 22 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Working memory was measured with a Norwegian adaptation of Swanson and Trahan’s (1992) Working Memory Span Task, which is based on the technique originally developed by Daneman and Carpenter (1980) . The Norwegian adaptation has been used and validated in much prior work with postsecondary students (e.g., Delgado et al, 2020 ; Bråten et al, 2022 ; Haverkamp and Bråten, 2022 ). The materials consisted of 42 unrelated declarative sentences, five to 12 words in length, which were organized into 12 sets of sentences.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring multiple-source based academic writing self-efficacy

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although writing self-efficacy has been a productive line of research for several decades, no prior writing self-efficacy measure has focused on students’ self-efficacy for integrating information across multiple sources when producing an academic text. To fill this gap in existing research on the measurement of writing motivation, we designed a measure targeting the extent to which students are confident that they can write an academic text that integrates content from several different sources. In a study with Norwegian undergraduate students (n = 136), this measure, which we called the Multiple-Source based Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (MAWSES), was validated by means of confirmatory factor analysis and relationships between the resulting unitary construct and other relevant constructs. The findings provided evidence concerning the reliability and validity of the MAWSES. In future research, this measure could be included as an independent variable to predict processes and products of multiple-source based, integrated academic writing, as a moderator or mediator of effects in writing intervention research, or as an outcome variable in its own right.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring multiple-source based academic writing self-efficacy

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Working Memory Capacity. Working memory capacity was measured with a Norwegian adaptation of Swanson and Trahan's (1992) Working Memory Span Test that has been validated in several previous studies with adult readers (e.g., Bråten et al, 2022;Delgado et al, 2020). Twelve sets of unrelated sentences, varying from two to five sentences in each set, were read aloud to participants.…”

Section: Control Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is it the size, the movement, or both? Investigating effects of screen size and text movement on processing, understanding, and motivation when students read informational text

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study focused on the potential effects of screen size (smartphone vs. tablet) and text movement (scrolling vs. paging) on integrated understanding of text information, strategic backtracking, and intrinsic reading motivation when Norwegian university students read an informational text on either a smartphone or a tablet by either scrolling or paging. We expected that paging would lead to better integrated understanding of the text and more strategic backtracking than scrolling. Also, we explored whether scrolling would lower the intrinsic motivation for performing the reading task, and whether there were interactional effects of screen size with text movement on integrated understanding, strategic backtracking, and intrinsic motivation. Results indicated that students tended to obtain better integrated understanding when paging than when scrolling, and that those who paged through the text displayed more strategic backtracking than those who scrolled. Further, scrolling on a tablet led to a more positive reading experience than paging on a tablet or scrolling on a smartphone. In addressing two basic aspects of the reading context and the reading activity when students read digital text for understanding, this study provides new insights into the complex digital reading puzzle that may have both theoretical and practical implications.

show abstract

“…Processing time has been found to predict multiple text comprehension (e.g., Bråten et al, 2014;. A second, validated measure of behavioral engagement is the extent of the written task product used to assess comprehension performance in response to open-ended integrative questions or essay tasks (Bråten et al, 2022;Latini et al 2019). Bråten et al (2022) investigated the effects of two components of behavioral engagement, writing time and response length, on text comprehension.…”

Section: Informational Context Engagement and Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A second, validated measure of behavioral engagement is the extent of the written task product used to assess comprehension performance in response to open-ended integrative questions or essay tasks (Bråten et al, 2022;Latini et al 2019). Bråten et al (2022) investigated the effects of two components of behavioral engagement, writing time and response length, on text comprehension. Findings showed that these components had unique and differential effects on comprehension and that behavioral engagement mediated the effects of cognitive and motivational individual differences on comprehension performance.…”

Section: Informational Context Engagement and Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do medium and Context Matter when learning from multiple complementary Digital texts and videos?

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students more than ever learn from online sources, such as digital texts or videos. Little research has compared processes and outcomes across these two mediums. Using a between-participants experimental design, this study investigated whether medium (texts vs. videos) and context (less authoritative vs. more authoritative), independently and in concert, affected students’ engagement, integrated understanding, and calibration. The two mediums presented identical information on the topic of social media, which was distributed across two complementary texts in the text condition and across two complementary videos in the video condition. In the less authoritative context, the two information sources (texts or videos) were posted by a friend on Facebook; in the more authoritative context, the same information sources (texts or videos) were posted by a professor on Moodle. Results showed a main effect of medium on behavioral engagement in terms of processing time, as students used longer time watching the two videos than reading the two digital texts. No other main medium or context effects were statistically significant; nor were there any interaction effects of medium with context on any of the outcome variables. The findings are discussed in light of the alternative hypotheses that guided the study and the directions it suggests for future research.

show abstract

Predictors and outcomes of behavioral engagement in the context of text comprehension: when quantity means quality

Cited by 22 publications

References 48 publications

Measuring multiple-source based academic writing self-efficacy

Measuring multiple-source based academic writing self-efficacy

Is it the size, the movement, or both? Investigating effects of screen size and text movement on processing, understanding, and motivation when students read informational text

Do medium and Context Matter when learning from multiple complementary Digital texts and videos?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About