在阅读多份互补文件时建立连贯性

IF 3.9 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Matthew T. McCrudden , Linh Huynh , Bailing Lyu , Jonna M. Kulikowich , Danielle S. McNamara
{"title":"在阅读多份互补文件时建立连贯性","authors":"Matthew T. McCrudden ,&nbsp;Linh Huynh ,&nbsp;Bailing Lyu ,&nbsp;Jonna M. Kulikowich ,&nbsp;Danielle S. McNamara","doi":"10.1016/j.cedpsych.2024.102266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Readers build a mental representation of text during reading. The coherence building processes readers use to build a mental representation during reading is key to comprehension. We examined the effects of self-explanation on coherence building processes as undergraduates (<em>n</em> = 51) read five complementary texts about natural selection and completed a post-reading measure of topic knowledge. Participants generated constructed responses (verbal protocols) while reading. We varied the use of constructed response prompt (self-explain vs. think-aloud) and constructed response format (typed vs. oral) to examine their impact on the quality of readers’ constructed responses and their coherence building processes (i.e., cohesion). Participants who received self-explanation instructions had higher quality constructed responses than participants who received think-aloud instructions, regardless of whether responses were typed or spoken aloud. Natural Language Processing (NLP) analyses indicated that participants who were prompted to self-explain generated more cohesive responses than those who were prompted to think-aloud. Participants who received self-explanation instructions had more coherent mental models during reading and typing was related to more cohesive responses when participants were asked to self-explain. Participants whose constructed responses were more lexically cohesive during reading had better performance on the post-reading test.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10635,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Educational Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coherence building while reading multiple complementary documents\",\"authors\":\"Matthew T. McCrudden ,&nbsp;Linh Huynh ,&nbsp;Bailing Lyu ,&nbsp;Jonna M. Kulikowich ,&nbsp;Danielle S. McNamara\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cedpsych.2024.102266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Readers build a mental representation of text during reading. The coherence building processes readers use to build a mental representation during reading is key to comprehension. We examined the effects of self-explanation on coherence building processes as undergraduates (<em>n</em> = 51) read five complementary texts about natural selection and completed a post-reading measure of topic knowledge. Participants generated constructed responses (verbal protocols) while reading. We varied the use of constructed response prompt (self-explain vs. think-aloud) and constructed response format (typed vs. oral) to examine their impact on the quality of readers’ constructed responses and their coherence building processes (i.e., cohesion). Participants who received self-explanation instructions had higher quality constructed responses than participants who received think-aloud instructions, regardless of whether responses were typed or spoken aloud. Natural Language Processing (NLP) analyses indicated that participants who were prompted to self-explain generated more cohesive responses than those who were prompted to think-aloud. Participants who received self-explanation instructions had more coherent mental models during reading and typing was related to more cohesive responses when participants were asked to self-explain. Participants whose constructed responses were more lexically cohesive during reading had better performance on the post-reading test.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10635,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Educational Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Educational Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361476X24000110\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Educational Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361476X24000110","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

读者在阅读过程中对文本建立心理表征。读者在阅读过程中建立心理表征的连贯性构建过程是理解的关键。在本科生(n = 51)阅读五篇关于自然选择的互补性文章并完成读后主题知识测量时,我们研究了自我解释对连贯性构建过程的影响。参与者在阅读过程中生成建构式回答(口头协议)。我们改变了建构式回答的提示(自我解释与思考-朗读)和建构式回答的形式(打字与口头),以考察它们对读者建构式回答的质量及其连贯性构建过程(即内聚力)的影响。与接受思考-朗读指导的受试者相比,接受自我解释指导的受试者的建构式回答质量更高,无论回答是打字还是朗读。自然语言处理(NLP)分析表明,接受自我解释提示的参与者比接受思考-朗读提示的参与者做出的回答更有内聚力。在阅读过程中,接受自我解释指导的参与者的心理模型更连贯,而在要求参与者自我解释时,打字与更连贯的回答有关。在阅读过程中构建的回答在词汇上更连贯的参与者在阅读后测试中的表现更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Coherence building while reading multiple complementary documents

Readers build a mental representation of text during reading. The coherence building processes readers use to build a mental representation during reading is key to comprehension. We examined the effects of self-explanation on coherence building processes as undergraduates (n = 51) read five complementary texts about natural selection and completed a post-reading measure of topic knowledge. Participants generated constructed responses (verbal protocols) while reading. We varied the use of constructed response prompt (self-explain vs. think-aloud) and constructed response format (typed vs. oral) to examine their impact on the quality of readers’ constructed responses and their coherence building processes (i.e., cohesion). Participants who received self-explanation instructions had higher quality constructed responses than participants who received think-aloud instructions, regardless of whether responses were typed or spoken aloud. Natural Language Processing (NLP) analyses indicated that participants who were prompted to self-explain generated more cohesive responses than those who were prompted to think-aloud. Participants who received self-explanation instructions had more coherent mental models during reading and typing was related to more cohesive responses when participants were asked to self-explain. Participants whose constructed responses were more lexically cohesive during reading had better performance on the post-reading test.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Contemporary Educational Psychology
Contemporary Educational Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
16.50
自引率
3.90%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Contemporary Educational Psychology is a scholarly journal that publishes empirical research from various parts of the world. The research aims to substantially advance, extend, or re-envision the ongoing discourse in educational psychology research and practice. To be considered for publication, manuscripts must be well-grounded in a comprehensive theoretical and empirical framework. This framework should raise critical and timely questions that educational psychology currently faces. Additionally, the questions asked should be closely related to the chosen methodological approach, and the authors should provide actionable implications for education research and practice. The journal seeks to publish manuscripts that offer cutting-edge theoretical and methodological perspectives on critical and timely education questions. The journal is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Contents Pages in Education, Australian Educational Index, Current Contents, EBSCOhost, Education Index, ERA, PsycINFO, Sociology of Education Abstracts, PubMed/Medline, BIOSIS Previews, and others.
×
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