Prompting Readers to Plan Might Negatively Affect Their Comprehension of Multiple Documents

Christian Tarchi
{"title":"Prompting Readers to Plan Might Negatively Affect Their Comprehension of Multiple Documents","authors":"Christian Tarchi","doi":"10.1080/10790195.2020.1823910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT People need to critically comprehend information across multiple sources that express contradictory viewpoints to make decisions on relevant everyday-life issues and participate in the democratic discourse. However, the processing of multiple documents depends on readers’ prior beliefs. The present study investigated the moderating effect of prompting planning on the link between prior beliefs and multiple-documents comprehension. Eighty university students participated in the study. First, their prior beliefs, prior knowledge, and topic interest were measured. Then, participants were randomly assigned to two conditions, one prompted, in which they were asked planning questions, and one non-prompted. Afterward, participants were assigned six documents presenting conflictual positions on flu vaccination, with the instruction of reading them, writing an argumentative essay, and making trustworthiness evaluations. According to the results, prompting students had a detrimental effect on argumentative essay performance, but not on trustworthiness judgments. This effect was stronger, the higher students’ prior beliefs were and the lower their task-value motivation was.","PeriodicalId":37761,"journal":{"name":"Journal of College Reading and Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10790195.2020.1823910","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of College Reading and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2020.1823910","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT People need to critically comprehend information across multiple sources that express contradictory viewpoints to make decisions on relevant everyday-life issues and participate in the democratic discourse. However, the processing of multiple documents depends on readers’ prior beliefs. The present study investigated the moderating effect of prompting planning on the link between prior beliefs and multiple-documents comprehension. Eighty university students participated in the study. First, their prior beliefs, prior knowledge, and topic interest were measured. Then, participants were randomly assigned to two conditions, one prompted, in which they were asked planning questions, and one non-prompted. Afterward, participants were assigned six documents presenting conflictual positions on flu vaccination, with the instruction of reading them, writing an argumentative essay, and making trustworthiness evaluations. According to the results, prompting students had a detrimental effect on argumentative essay performance, but not on trustworthiness judgments. This effect was stronger, the higher students’ prior beliefs were and the lower their task-value motivation was.
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
提示读者计划可能会对他们对多个文档的理解产生负面影响
人们需要批判性地理解来自多个来源的信息,这些信息表达了相互矛盾的观点,从而对相关的日常生活问题做出决定,并参与民主话语。然而,对多个文档的处理依赖于读者的先验信念。本研究考察了提示计划对先验信念与多文件理解之间联系的调节作用。80名大学生参加了这项研究。首先,测量他们的先验信念、先验知识和话题兴趣。然后,参与者被随机分配到两种情况下,一种情况下,他们被问及计划问题,另一种情况下,他们被问及计划问题。之后,参与者被分配了六份关于流感疫苗接种的冲突立场的文件,并被要求阅读这些文件,写一篇辩论文章,并进行可信度评估。根据结果,提示学生对议论文的表现有不利影响,但对可信度判断没有影响。这种效应越强,学生的先验信念越高,任务价值动机越低。
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
Journal of College Reading and Learning
Journal of College Reading and Learning Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Journal of College Reading and Learning (JCRL) invites authors to submit their scholarly research for publication. JCRL is an international forum for the publication of high-quality articles on theory, research, and policy related to areas of developmental education, postsecondary literacy instruction, and learning assistance at the postsecondary level. JCRL is published triannually in the spring, summer, and fall for the College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA). In addition to publishing investigations of the reading, writing, thinking, and studying of college learners, JCRL seeks manuscripts with a college focus on the following topics: effective teaching for struggling learners, learning through new technologies and texts, learning support for culturally and linguistically diverse student populations, and program evaluations of developmental and learning assistance instructional models.
期刊最新文献
Hospitality in the Writing Center: A Conceptual Framework for Tutors Navigating Academic Arguments: Teaching Reporting Verbs in Transitional Reading Courses Identifying Clusters of Less-Skilled College Student Readers Based on Cognitive Processes Bridging the Printed or Digital Controversy: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Digital and Print Resources on College Students’ Reading Comprehension Metacognitive Experiences of EFL Students as Predictors of Enjoyment, Engagement, and Performance in L2 Writing
×
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