1 / 16

Reading for Understanding: Instilling Reader Goals and Expectations

Reading for Understanding: Instilling Reader Goals and Expectations. Jennifer Wiley & Thomas D. Griffin University of Illinois at Chicago Keith Thiede , Boise State Supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Grants R305H030170 and R305B07460.

diamond
Download Presentation

Reading for Understanding: Instilling Reader Goals and Expectations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reading for Understanding: Instilling Reader Goals and Expectations Jennifer Wiley & Thomas D. Griffin University of Illinois at Chicago Keith Thiede, Boise State Supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, GrantsR305H030170 and R305B07460

  2. The importance of comprehension and metacomprehension in learning from text • The goal of reading expository text in subject matter instruction is generally for the reader to understanda new phenomenon or a process (Wiley, Griffin & Thiede, 2005; Wiley & Myers, 2003). • This requires more than surface memory or superficial processing of the text (Kintsch, 1994). • It requires comprehension (the construction and integration of causal mental models).

  3. The importance of comprehension and metacomprehension in learning from text • Accurate comprehension monitoring metacomprehension is critical for the effective self-regulation of study. • However, readers are typically poor at gauging their comprehension of expository texts. (Dunlosky & Lipko, 2007; Maki, 1998: Thiede, Wiley, Griffin & Redford, 2009) . • As a result of poor metacomprehension accuracy, readers fail to make optimal decisions about what to re-read (Maki, 1998; Thiede, Anderson, & Therriault, 2003).

  4. Defining Metacomprehension Accuracy Common Procedure: READ6 – JUDGE6 – TEST6 • How well will you do on each test? • Rank order correlations between judgment & actual test performance JUDGE TEST • Volcanoes 5 5 • Lightning 4 4 • Cheese Making 3 3 • Photosynthesis 2 2 • Natural Selection 3 3 • Ice Ages 5 5 Perfect 1.0 !!

  5. Defining Metacomprehension Accuracy Common Procedure: READ6 – JUDGE6 – TEST6 • How well will you do on each test? • Rank order correlations between judgment & actual test performance JUDGE TEST • Volcanoes 5 5 • Lightning 4 4 • Cheese Making 3 3 • Photosynthesis 4 2 • Natural Selection 3 3 • Ice Ages 2 5 More Typical Value: .27

  6. What factors may lead to inaccurate judgments? • Readers may be selecting the WRONG cues as the basis for their judgments (Koriat, 1997) • How well did you understand this text? • How well will you do on a comprehension test? • Students may not understand what it means to “read for understanding” or what it means to “comprehend” an expository text. • Students may not know what to expect for a comprehension test. Do readers use valid cues for comprehension?

  7. Reported Basis for JudgmentsThiede, Griffin, Wiley & Anderson, 2010How many items will you get right on a comprehension test?What did you base your judgment on?

  8. Metacomprehension Accuracy Thiede, Griffin, Wiley & Anderson, 2010 How many items will you get right on a comprehension test?

  9. Students need to know what “Reading for Understanding” means • Memory for text is not comprehension of text • memory cues come from surface or textbase levels • we define understanding in terms of the situation model which requires the integration of ideas (Kintsch, 1994, 1998) • To make a judgment, a reader monitors various cues • Readers may default to memory cues • However these cues are not necessarily predictive of understanding. • When comprehension items tap the situation-model level (causal inferences, explanations), judgments based on the quality of their situation models will be more valid • Use of valid cues should improve metacomprehension accuracy

  10. Supporting Better Metacomprehension with Valid Cues for Understanding • Delayed Keyword/Summary Tasks after reading Thiede & Anderson, 2003; Thiede, Anderson & Therriault, 2003; Thiede, Dunlosky, Griffin & Wiley, 2005; Anderson & Thiede, 2007 - surface memory fades quickly • Self Explanation during reading Griffin, Wiley & Thiede, 2007 • Focused readers on quality of situation model representation • Concept Mapping during reading Thiede, Anderson, Griffin & Wiley, 2010 • Focused less-skilled readers on quality of situation model representation All of the above provide a CONTEXT that makes valid cues more accessible and improves accuracy to .50-.80 • Practice Tests and Test Expectancy • Can readers select valid cues on their own if they are given more information (goals and expectations) about what reading for understanding entails?

  11. Improving Metacomprehension Accuracy with Test ExpectancyWiley, Griffin & Thiede, in preparation • 3 Expectancy Conditions instilled in 3 Practice Texts • Told Memory Test, Given Example Memory Tests • Told Comprehension Test, Given Example Inference Tests • No Example Tests or Expectancies (only read texts) • Read and Predicted Test performance on 6 target texts • How many items do you think you will get correct on a 5 item test? • Everyone got BOTH memory and inference target tests • Final test order counterbalanced Both metamemory and metacomprehension accuracy were computed

  12. Test Expectancies help Wiley, Griffin & Thiede, in preparation Similar results obtained in Thiede, Wiley & Griffin, in press

  13. Test expectancy influences monitoring accuracy • Better metacomprehension accuracy was seen when participants expected comprehension tests, and had an idea of what a comprehension item would be like. • Some evidence that expectations can guide selection of valid cues, but modestly • Can an intervention that makes valid cues more accessible, along with expectancy that guides selection, further improve monitoring accuracy?

  14. Instilling both expectancies and processing goals Wiley, Griffin & Thiede, in preparation • Comprehension Test Expectancyor not • 3 Practice Texts • Told Comprehension Test, Given Inference Tests • No Test Information, No Practice Tests • (just read the 3 practice texts) • Self-explain silently while reading vs. not • Make connections, say how and why sentences relate, explain relations (Based on Chi, 2000) • Aids metacomprehension accuracy through access to situation-model level cues (Griffin, Wiley & Thiede, 2007)

  15. Both Test Expectancy and Self-Explanation help

  16. Readers need to know what Reading for Understandingmeans • In combination, both practice tests (on OTHER topics) and self-explanation instructions helped readers to monitor their own understanding on NEW texts. • Readers need to be directed to consider situation-model level cues when judging understanding, and those cues need to be salient. • Exploring the long-term effects of these interventions on studying and learning outcomes is the next step. • Ultimately, giving students a sense of “understanding” should allow them to engage in more effective self-regulated studying as they attempt to comprehend information from expository texts.

More Related