Effects of reading instructions on pre-service teachers’ judgment bias when learning from texts

IF 3.9 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Jennifer Knellesen, Marion Händel, Stefanie Golke
{"title":"Effects of reading instructions on pre-service teachers’ judgment bias when learning from texts","authors":"Jennifer Knellesen, Marion Händel, Stefanie Golke","doi":"10.1007/s11409-023-09371-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Learning from texts means acquiring and applying knowledge, which requires students to judge their text comprehension accurately. However, students usually overestimate their comprehension, which can be caused by a misalignment between the cues used to judge one’s comprehension and the cognitive requirements of future test questions. Therefore, reading instructions might help students to use more valid cues and hence to make more accurate judgments. In two randomized experiments, we investigated the effect of application instructions (in contrast to general and memory instructions) on judgment bias regarding memory test performance and application test performance. In Experiment 1, 131 pre-service teacher students read two texts: For the first text (pretest phase), all participants received general reading instructions. For the second text (testing phase), they received one of the three reading instructions. Main results were that the general reading instructions in the pretest phase resulted in underestimation for memory test performance and overestimation for application test performance. Results from the testing phase yielded mixed effects and, overall, no strong evidence that reading instructions, and in particular application instructions, are beneficial for debiasing judgments of comprehension. Experiment 2 (<i>N</i> = 164 pre-service teachers) restudied the effects with the same texts but a different study design. Results replicated the effects found in the testing phase of Experiment 1. Overall, the results indicated that reading instructions without further support are not sufficient to help students to accurately judge their comprehension and suggested that text characteristics might impact the effect of reading instructions on judgment bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":47385,"journal":{"name":"Metacognition and Learning","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metacognition and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09371-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Learning from texts means acquiring and applying knowledge, which requires students to judge their text comprehension accurately. However, students usually overestimate their comprehension, which can be caused by a misalignment between the cues used to judge one’s comprehension and the cognitive requirements of future test questions. Therefore, reading instructions might help students to use more valid cues and hence to make more accurate judgments. In two randomized experiments, we investigated the effect of application instructions (in contrast to general and memory instructions) on judgment bias regarding memory test performance and application test performance. In Experiment 1, 131 pre-service teacher students read two texts: For the first text (pretest phase), all participants received general reading instructions. For the second text (testing phase), they received one of the three reading instructions. Main results were that the general reading instructions in the pretest phase resulted in underestimation for memory test performance and overestimation for application test performance. Results from the testing phase yielded mixed effects and, overall, no strong evidence that reading instructions, and in particular application instructions, are beneficial for debiasing judgments of comprehension. Experiment 2 (N = 164 pre-service teachers) restudied the effects with the same texts but a different study design. Results replicated the effects found in the testing phase of Experiment 1. Overall, the results indicated that reading instructions without further support are not sufficient to help students to accurately judge their comprehension and suggested that text characteristics might impact the effect of reading instructions on judgment bias.

阅读指导对职前教师学习课文时判断偏差的影响
从课文中学习意味着获取和应用知识,这就要求学生准确判断自己对课文的理解程度。然而,学生通常会高估自己的理解能力,这可能是用于判断自己理解能力的线索与未来试题的认知要求不一致造成的。因此,阅读指导可以帮助学生使用更有效的线索,从而做出更准确的判断。在两个随机实验中,我们研究了应用指导(与一般指导和记忆指导相反)对记忆测试成绩和应用测试成绩的判断偏差的影响。在实验 1 中,131 名职前师范生阅读了两篇文章:对于第一篇文章(预测试阶段),所有参与者都接受了一般阅读指导。对于第二篇文章(测试阶段),他们接受了三种阅读指导中的一种。主要结果是,前测阶段的一般阅读指导导致记忆测试成绩被低估,而应用测试成绩被高估。测试阶段的结果喜忧参半,总的来说,没有强有力的证据表明阅读指导,特别是应用指导,有利于消除对理解能力的判断。实验 2(N = 164 名职前教师)采用相同的文本和不同的研究设计重新研究了效果。结果与实验 1 测试阶段的效果相同。总体而言,实验结果表明,没有进一步支持的阅读指导不足以帮助学生准确判断自己的理解能力,并表明文本特征可能会影响阅读指导对判断偏差的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
15.20%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The journal "Metacognition and Learning" addresses various components of metacognition, such as metacognitive awareness, experiences, knowledge, and executive skills. Both general metacognition as well as domain-specific metacognitions in various task domains (mathematics, physics, reading, writing etc.) are considered. Papers may address fundamental theoretical issues, measurement issues regarding both quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as empirical studies about individual differences in metacognition, relations with other learner characteristics and learning strategies, developmental issues, the training of metacognition components in learning, and the teacher’s role in metacognition training. Studies highlighting the role of metacognition in self- or co-regulated learning as well as its relations with motivation and affect are also welcomed. Submitted papers are judged on theoretical relevance, methodological thoroughness, and appeal to an international audience. The journal aims for a high academic standard with relevance to the field of educational practices. One restriction is that papers should pertain to the role of metacognition in learning situations. Self-regulation in clinical settings, such as coping with phobia or anxiety outside learning situations, is beyond the scope of the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信