Improving multiple document comprehension with a lesson about multi-causal explanations in science

IF 2.6 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Instructional Science Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1007/s11251-023-09657-1
Thomas D. Griffin, Allison J. Jaeger, M. Anne Britt, Jennifer Wiley
{"title":"Improving multiple document comprehension with a lesson about multi-causal explanations in science","authors":"Thomas D. Griffin, Allison J. Jaeger, M. Anne Britt, Jennifer Wiley","doi":"10.1007/s11251-023-09657-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Relying on multiple documents to answer questions is becoming common for both academic and personal inquiry tasks. These tasks often require students to explain phenomena by taking various causal factors that are mentioned separately in different documents and integrating them into a coherent multi-causal explanation of some phenomena. However, inquiry questions may not make this requirement explicit and may instead simply ask students to explain why the phenomenon occurs. This paper explores an <i>Activity Model Hypothesis</i> that posits students lack knowledge that their explanation should be multi-causal and how to engage in the kind of thinking needed to construct such an explanation. This experiment, conducted on a sample of eigth grade students, manipulated whether students received a short 10-min lesson on the nature of scientific explanations and multi-causal reasoning. Students who received this causal chain lesson wrote essays that were more causally complex and integrated, and subsequently performed better on an inference verification test, than students who did not receive the lesson. These results point to relatively simple changes to instructions that can provide the support students need for successful multiple-document comprehension.</p>","PeriodicalId":47990,"journal":{"name":"Instructional Science","volume":"75 2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Instructional Science","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09657-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Relying on multiple documents to answer questions is becoming common for both academic and personal inquiry tasks. These tasks often require students to explain phenomena by taking various causal factors that are mentioned separately in different documents and integrating them into a coherent multi-causal explanation of some phenomena. However, inquiry questions may not make this requirement explicit and may instead simply ask students to explain why the phenomenon occurs. This paper explores an Activity Model Hypothesis that posits students lack knowledge that their explanation should be multi-causal and how to engage in the kind of thinking needed to construct such an explanation. This experiment, conducted on a sample of eigth grade students, manipulated whether students received a short 10-min lesson on the nature of scientific explanations and multi-causal reasoning. Students who received this causal chain lesson wrote essays that were more causally complex and integrated, and subsequently performed better on an inference verification test, than students who did not receive the lesson. These results point to relatively simple changes to instructions that can provide the support students need for successful multiple-document comprehension.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过科学中的多因果解释课程提高多文档理解能力
在学术和个人探究任务中,依靠多份文件来回答问题正变得越来越普遍。这些任务通常要求学生解释现象,方法是将不同文件中分别提到的各种因果因素,整合成对某些现象的连贯的多因果解释。然而,探究问题可能不会明确提出这一要求,而只是要求学生解释现象发生的原因。本文探讨了一种 "活动模式假设",即学生不知道他们的解释应该是多因果关系的,也不知道如何进行构建这种解释所需的思考。本实验以八年级学生为样本,操纵学生是否接受了关于科学解释的性质和多因果推理的 10 分钟短课。与没有上过因果链课程的学生相比,上过因果链课程的学生写出的文章在因果关系上更复杂、更完整,随后在推理验证测试中的表现也更好。这些结果表明,对教学指导进行相对简单的修改,就能为学生成功理解多文献提供所需的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Instructional Science, An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, promotes a deeper understanding of the nature, theory, and practice of learning and of environments in which learning occurs. The journal’s conception of learning, as well as of instruction, is broad, recognizing that there are many ways to stimulate and support learning. The journal encourages submission of research papers, covering a variety of perspectives from the learning sciences and learning, by people of all ages, in all areas of the curriculum, in technologically rich or lean environments, and in informal and formal learning contexts. Emphasizing reports of original empirical research, the journal provides space for full and detailed reporting of major studies. Regardless of the topic, papers published in the journal all make an explicit contribution to the science of learning and instruction by drawing out the implications for the design and implementation of learning environments. We particularly encourage the submission of papers that highlight the interaction between learning processes and learning environments, focus on meaningful learning, and recognize the role of context. Papers are characterized by methodological variety that ranges, for example, from experimental studies in laboratory settings, to qualitative studies, to design-based research in authentic learning settings.  The Editors will occasionally invite experts to write a review article on an important topic in the field.  When review articles are considered for publication, they must deal with central issues in the domain of learning and learning environments. The journal accepts replication studies. Such a study should replicate an important and seminal finding in the field, from a study which was originally conducted by a different research group. Most years, Instructional Science publishes a guest-edited thematic special issue on a topic central to the journal''s scope. Proposals for special issues can be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Proposals will be discussed in Spring and Fall of each year, and the proposers will be notified afterwards.  To be considered for the Spring and Fall discussion, proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief by March 1 and October 1, respectively.  Please note that articles that are submitted for a special issue will follow the same review process as regular articles.
期刊最新文献
Spaced recall reduces forgetting of fundamental mathematical concepts in a post high school precalculus course The roles that students’ ethnicity and achievement levels play in teachers’ choice of learning materials in online teaching: evidence from two experimental studies Research on the correlation between teacher classroom questioning types and student thinking development from the perspective of discourse analysis Developmental relations between mathematics self-concept, interest, and achievement: A comparison of solo- and co-taught classes Gaming the system mediates the relationship between gender and learning outcomes in a digital learning game
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1