多元文献阅读中的元理解

IF 1.5 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Corinna Schuster, Maria Alef, Marcel Mierwald, N. Brauch, Marc Stadtler
{"title":"多元文献阅读中的元理解","authors":"Corinna Schuster, Maria Alef, Marcel Mierwald, N. Brauch, Marc Stadtler","doi":"10.1026/0049-8637/a000278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Accurately assessing someone’s comprehension is central to learning from multiple documents. This study examines whether judgment accuracy can be increased if readers summarize texts before assessing their own comprehension. We asked 144 adults to read multiple documents on a historical controversy. They then produced Twitter-like summaries either (a) after a time delay or (b) immediately after reading; a control group (c) did not write summaries. Results showed that delaying writing summaries increased the absolute accuracy of self-assessments of undisputed historical content knowledge. We found negative effects for the accuracy of self-assessments of source–content links, intertextual conflicts, and integration performance in an essay. The relative accuracy was lower in the delayed summaries group than in the controls. In summary, the positive effect of writing summaries appears to be limited to the self-assessment of content knowledge, whereas it is reduced with respect to forms of knowledge specific to reading multiple texts.","PeriodicalId":45028,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Entwicklungspsychologie Und Padagogische Psychologie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metacomprehension in Multiple Document Reading\",\"authors\":\"Corinna Schuster, Maria Alef, Marcel Mierwald, N. Brauch, Marc Stadtler\",\"doi\":\"10.1026/0049-8637/a000278\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract: Accurately assessing someone’s comprehension is central to learning from multiple documents. This study examines whether judgment accuracy can be increased if readers summarize texts before assessing their own comprehension. We asked 144 adults to read multiple documents on a historical controversy. They then produced Twitter-like summaries either (a) after a time delay or (b) immediately after reading; a control group (c) did not write summaries. Results showed that delaying writing summaries increased the absolute accuracy of self-assessments of undisputed historical content knowledge. We found negative effects for the accuracy of self-assessments of source–content links, intertextual conflicts, and integration performance in an essay. The relative accuracy was lower in the delayed summaries group than in the controls. In summary, the positive effect of writing summaries appears to be limited to the self-assessment of content knowledge, whereas it is reduced with respect to forms of knowledge specific to reading multiple texts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift Fur Entwicklungspsychologie Und Padagogische Psychologie\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift Fur Entwicklungspsychologie Und Padagogische Psychologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1026/0049-8637/a000278\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift Fur Entwicklungspsychologie Und Padagogische Psychologie","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1026/0049-8637/a000278","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要:准确评估某人的理解能力是从多个文档中学习的核心。这项研究考察了如果读者在评估自己的理解之前总结文本,是否可以提高判断的准确性。我们让144名成年人阅读了多份关于历史争议的文件。然后,他们制作了类似推特的摘要,要么(a)在延迟一段时间后,要么(b)在阅读后立即;对照组(c)没有写总结。结果表明,推迟撰写摘要提高了对无可争议的历史内容知识的自我评估的绝对准确性。我们在一篇文章中发现,对源内容链接、互文冲突和整合表现的自我评估准确性有负面影响。延迟总结组的相对准确度低于对照组。总之,撰写摘要的积极影响似乎仅限于对内容知识的自我评估,而在阅读多篇文章所特有的知识形式方面则有所减少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Metacomprehension in Multiple Document Reading
Abstract: Accurately assessing someone’s comprehension is central to learning from multiple documents. This study examines whether judgment accuracy can be increased if readers summarize texts before assessing their own comprehension. We asked 144 adults to read multiple documents on a historical controversy. They then produced Twitter-like summaries either (a) after a time delay or (b) immediately after reading; a control group (c) did not write summaries. Results showed that delaying writing summaries increased the absolute accuracy of self-assessments of undisputed historical content knowledge. We found negative effects for the accuracy of self-assessments of source–content links, intertextual conflicts, and integration performance in an essay. The relative accuracy was lower in the delayed summaries group than in the controls. In summary, the positive effect of writing summaries appears to be limited to the self-assessment of content knowledge, whereas it is reduced with respect to forms of knowledge specific to reading multiple texts.
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
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie (DGPs) und der Fachgruppen Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie
×
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