Search and Comprehension Processes in Learning from Text

Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Gil, L., Gilabert, R., & Martínez, T.

University of Valencia

Comprehension & Learning from Text

Search tasks in complex documents ( Rouet & Tricot, 1998)

Evaluation (E): search goal & strategy

Selection (S): selection of information units

Processing (P): extraction of relevant information

Iterations of E-S-P cycles Pattern of search (Rouet, Vidal-Abarca, Bert-Erlboul & Millogo, 2001)

High level questions: Review & Integrate

Low level questions: Locate & Memorize

Adjunct Questions: Aids for Comprehension & Learning

Previous experiment to study Search & Comprehension processes

(Vidal-Abarca, et al., 2002)

22 University students 2 groups: high vs. low level questions Task: (on a computer screen)

Reading long science text (1800 words) + Searching info to Answer (HL vs. LL) questions

Reading the question Re-reading the text (if neened) Writing the answer

Cycles

Main results

Answering questions at a good level implied:

Reading questions fewer times. Selecting lower number of text segments (relevant + non-relevant for the questions) Reading more relevant segments. Fewer answering cycles.

High level questions:

Low level questions:

Reading questions more times and selecting more text segments (relevant + non-relevant)

Reading questions fewer times and selecting fewer text segments (relevant + non-relevant)

Current experiment

New Situation: searching info to answer (HL vs LL) Qs, but NO prior reading text

GOAL: replicate prior results? Search & comprehension processes in

answering questions at good vs. poor level? Search patterns to answer high vs. low level

questions?

Procedure

16 University students. 2 groups: high level vs. low level questions Task: on a computer screen (Read & Answer)

Searching info to Answer (HL vs. LL) questions Reading the question Reading the text Writing the answer

Cycles

Read&Answer

1. Reading the question

2. Searching info to answer Q

DesignANOVAs 2x2: Type of question x Comprehension

(Answering level)

High L Q: Integrating distant information + many inferences

Low L Q: Locating especific information + few or no inferences.

Good comprehension (highest third score)

Poor comprension (lowest third score)

On line measuresEvaluation Phase: • Number of times reading the questions.

• Time spent reading the questions.• Word reading time per visit.

Processing Phase:

• % of time reading relevant segments within each question.

Control Processes:•Number of QTW cycles: Q (reading the question), T (reading the text), W (writing an answer),

Selection Phase: • Number of total paragraphs visited.• Number of relevant paragraphs.• % of relevant paragraphs.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Good Poor

High level

Low level

Evaluation phaseEvaluation phase: Times : Times reading questionsreading questions

Selection phaseSelection phase: % of : % of relevant segmentsrelevant segments

Processing phaseProcessing phase: % of time : % of time reading relevant segmentsreading relevant segments

Executive control processesExecutive control processes: : number of QTW cyclesnumber of QTW cycles

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

good poor

high level

low level

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

good poor

high level

low level

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

good poor

high level

low level

SummaryAnswering at a Good vs. Poor level:

Reading questions fewer times.

Selecting a higher percentage of relevant segments ( especially in low level questions)

Fewer answering cycles.

High vs.low level questions:

High level: Reading questions more times, selecting more segments (relevant + non-relevant) and using more QTW cycles.

Low level: Reading questions fewer times, selecting fewer text segments and using fewer QTW cycles.

Conclusions

Good comprehenders: effective search pattern

Poor comprehenders: loss in search task

Pattern for High level questions: Review&Integrate

Pattern for Low level questions: Locate&Memorize