理解不同媒体形式的叙事:小学生理解文字和视频的过程与结果

IF 2 2区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Dianne Venneker, Anne Helder, Paul van den Broek
{"title":"理解不同媒体形式的叙事:小学生理解文字和视频的过程与结果","authors":"Dianne Venneker, Anne Helder, Paul van den Broek","doi":"10.1007/s11145-024-10573-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study investigated similarities and differences in children’s (<i>N</i> = 83, grades 4–6) narrative comprehension between text, audio, and non-verbal video, including measures of both comprehension products and processes. The aim was to understand how children engage with information across various media and, in doing so, address inconsistent findings in the existing literature. Comprehension products were assessed through open-ended questions and recall, and comprehension processes through think-aloud protocols. Results revealed that children answered more comprehension questions correctly for video versions of the narratives than for text versions, particularly children with lower reading comprehension skills. No advantage of video over text was found for the recall task. Think-aloud responses during narrative comprehension revealed similar processing patterns for text and video, with a general tendency to report information close to the story rather than elaborate based on background knowledge. However, video versions prompted children to activate background knowledge to a greater extent than did text versions, suggesting an advantage of video at the situation-model level. Notably, differences between video and text versions cannot be attributed solely to the absence of decoding demands in video, as similar differences were found between video and audio versions. These results suggest (a) considerable similarities in both process and product across media, but (b) non-verbal videos elicit more situation-model processes than texts do, (c) non-verbal videos have an advantage over text with regard to performance on the comprehension questions, especially for less-skilled comprehenders. These findings illustrate the nuanced relationship between media affordances and comprehension processes and outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":48204,"journal":{"name":"Reading and Writing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding narratives in different media formats: Processes and products of elementary-school children’s comprehension of texts and videos\",\"authors\":\"Dianne Venneker, Anne Helder, Paul van den Broek\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11145-024-10573-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This study investigated similarities and differences in children’s (<i>N</i> = 83, grades 4–6) narrative comprehension between text, audio, and non-verbal video, including measures of both comprehension products and processes. The aim was to understand how children engage with information across various media and, in doing so, address inconsistent findings in the existing literature. Comprehension products were assessed through open-ended questions and recall, and comprehension processes through think-aloud protocols. Results revealed that children answered more comprehension questions correctly for video versions of the narratives than for text versions, particularly children with lower reading comprehension skills. No advantage of video over text was found for the recall task. Think-aloud responses during narrative comprehension revealed similar processing patterns for text and video, with a general tendency to report information close to the story rather than elaborate based on background knowledge. However, video versions prompted children to activate background knowledge to a greater extent than did text versions, suggesting an advantage of video at the situation-model level. Notably, differences between video and text versions cannot be attributed solely to the absence of decoding demands in video, as similar differences were found between video and audio versions. These results suggest (a) considerable similarities in both process and product across media, but (b) non-verbal videos elicit more situation-model processes than texts do, (c) non-verbal videos have an advantage over text with regard to performance on the comprehension questions, especially for less-skilled comprehenders. These findings illustrate the nuanced relationship between media affordances and comprehension processes and outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reading and Writing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reading and Writing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10573-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading and Writing","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10573-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究调查了儿童(83 人,4-6 年级)对文本、音频和非语言视频叙事理解的异同,包括对理解产品和过程的测量。研究的目的是了解儿童如何在各种媒体中获取信息,从而解决现有文献中不一致的研究结果。通过开放式问题和回忆对理解产品进行评估,通过思考-朗读协议对理解过程进行评估。结果显示,与文字版本相比,儿童对视频版本叙述的理解问题的正确回答率更高,尤其是阅读理解能力较低的儿童。在回忆任务中,视频与文字相比没有优势。叙事理解过程中的思考-朗读反应显示,文字和视频的处理模式相似,一般都倾向于报告接近故事的信息,而不是根据背景知识进行阐述。然而,与文字版本相比,视频版本能在更大程度上促使儿童激活背景知识,这表明视频在情境模型层面上具有优势。值得注意的是,视频和文字版本之间的差异不能仅仅归因于视频中没有解码要求,因为视频和音频版本之间也存在类似的差异。这些结果表明:(a) 不同媒体的过程和结果有很大的相似性;(b) 非语言视频比文字更能激发情境模型过程;(c) 非语言视频在理解问题上比文字更有优势,尤其是对理解能力较差的人而言。这些研究结果说明了媒体承受能力与理解过程和结果之间的微妙关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Understanding narratives in different media formats: Processes and products of elementary-school children’s comprehension of texts and videos

Understanding narratives in different media formats: Processes and products of elementary-school children’s comprehension of texts and videos

This study investigated similarities and differences in children’s (N = 83, grades 4–6) narrative comprehension between text, audio, and non-verbal video, including measures of both comprehension products and processes. The aim was to understand how children engage with information across various media and, in doing so, address inconsistent findings in the existing literature. Comprehension products were assessed through open-ended questions and recall, and comprehension processes through think-aloud protocols. Results revealed that children answered more comprehension questions correctly for video versions of the narratives than for text versions, particularly children with lower reading comprehension skills. No advantage of video over text was found for the recall task. Think-aloud responses during narrative comprehension revealed similar processing patterns for text and video, with a general tendency to report information close to the story rather than elaborate based on background knowledge. However, video versions prompted children to activate background knowledge to a greater extent than did text versions, suggesting an advantage of video at the situation-model level. Notably, differences between video and text versions cannot be attributed solely to the absence of decoding demands in video, as similar differences were found between video and audio versions. These results suggest (a) considerable similarities in both process and product across media, but (b) non-verbal videos elicit more situation-model processes than texts do, (c) non-verbal videos have an advantage over text with regard to performance on the comprehension questions, especially for less-skilled comprehenders. These findings illustrate the nuanced relationship between media affordances and comprehension processes and outcomes.

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
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
16.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Reading and writing skills are fundamental to literacy. Consequently, the processes involved in reading and writing and the failure to acquire these skills, as well as the loss of once well-developed reading and writing abilities have been the targets of intense research activity involving professionals from a variety of disciplines, such as neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics and education. The findings that have emanated from this research are most often written up in a lingua that is specific to the particular discipline involved, and are published in specialized journals. This generally leaves the expert in one area almost totally unaware of what may be taking place in any area other than their own. Reading and Writing cuts through this fog of jargon, breaking down the artificial boundaries between disciplines. The journal focuses on the interaction among various fields, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Reading and Writing publishes high-quality, scientific articles pertaining to the processes, acquisition, and loss of reading and writing skills. The journal fully represents the necessarily interdisciplinary nature of research in the field, focusing on the interaction among various disciplines, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Coverage in Reading and Writing includes models of reading, writing and spelling at all age levels; orthography and its relation to reading and writing; computer literacy; cross-cultural studies; and developmental and acquired disorders of reading and writing. It publishes research articles, critical reviews, theoretical papers, and case studies. Reading and Writing is one of the most highly cited journals in Education, Educational Research, and Educational Psychology.
×
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