The Effects of the Format and Frequency of Prompts on Source Evaluation and Multiple-Text Comprehension

IF 1.2 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL

Reading Psychology Pub Date : 2022-12-19 DOI:10.1080/02702711.2022.2156949

Lin Guo

{"title":"The Effects of the Format and Frequency of Prompts on Source Evaluation and Multiple-Text Comprehension","authors":"Lin Guo","doi":"10.1080/02702711.2022.2156949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study investigated how and how often to present prompts to enhance students’ source evaluation and multiple-text comprehension. Participants were 72 undergraduates who read a set of digital texts on a controversial topic of smartphone use and mental health, wrote a justification statement for their selection of trustworthy texts, and answered open-ended comprehension questions. To explore the optimal presentation conditions, this study varied the presentation format (matrix vs. question) and frequency (once vs. repeated) of prompts. The results showed that participants benefited more from the matrix prompt than the question prompt in source evaluation and multiple-text comprehension. An interaction effect occurred only in multiple-text comprehension, indicating that repeated prompting via matrix was an optimal approach to facilitate integration of text information. In addition, participants perceived less cognitive load when matrix was presented than when questions were presented. Taken together, these results have classroom implications for instructors to consider both the format and frequency of presenting prompts to facilitate source evaluation and comprehension of multiple conflicting-view articles.","PeriodicalId":46567,"journal":{"name":"Reading Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2022.2156949","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract This study investigated how and how often to present prompts to enhance students’ source evaluation and multiple-text comprehension. Participants were 72 undergraduates who read a set of digital texts on a controversial topic of smartphone use and mental health, wrote a justification statement for their selection of trustworthy texts, and answered open-ended comprehension questions. To explore the optimal presentation conditions, this study varied the presentation format (matrix vs. question) and frequency (once vs. repeated) of prompts. The results showed that participants benefited more from the matrix prompt than the question prompt in source evaluation and multiple-text comprehension. An interaction effect occurred only in multiple-text comprehension, indicating that repeated prompting via matrix was an optimal approach to facilitate integration of text information. In addition, participants perceived less cognitive load when matrix was presented than when questions were presented. Taken together, these results have classroom implications for instructors to consider both the format and frequency of presenting prompts to facilitate source evaluation and comprehension of multiple conflicting-view articles.

查看原文本刊更多论文

提示语的格式和频率对原文评价和多文本理解的影响

摘要本研究调查了如何以及多久提示一次，以提高学生的来源评价和多文本理解。参与者是72名本科生，他们阅读了一组关于智能手机使用和心理健康的有争议话题的数字文本，为他们选择的值得信赖的文本写了一份理由声明，并回答了开放式理解问题。为了探索最佳的演示条件，本研究改变了提示的演示格式（矩阵与问题）和频率（一次与重复）。结果表明，在源评价和多语篇理解中，参与者从矩阵提示中受益大于问题提示。交互效应只出现在多文本理解中，表明通过矩阵的重复提示是促进文本信息整合的最佳方法。此外，当呈现矩阵时，参与者感知到的认知负荷比呈现问题时更少。总之，这些结果对教师考虑提示的格式和频率具有课堂意义，以促进对多篇观点冲突文章的来源评估和理解。

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

Reading Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-

CiteScore

2.20

自引率

7.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Prepared exclusively by professionals, this refereed journal publishes original manuscripts in the fields of literacy, reading, and related psychology disciplines. Articles appear in the form of completed research; practitioner-based "experiential" methods or philosophical statements; teacher and counselor preparation services for guiding all levels of reading skill development, attitudes, and interests; programs or materials; and literary or humorous contributions.