The Effects of the Format and Frequency of Prompts on Source Evaluation and Multiple-Text Comprehension

IF 1.2 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Reading Psychology Pub Date : 2022-12-19 DOI:10.1080/02702711.2022.2156949
Lin Guo
{"title":"The Effects of the Format and Frequency of Prompts on Source Evaluation and Multiple-Text Comprehension","authors":"Lin Guo","doi":"10.1080/02702711.2022.2156949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study investigated how and how often to present prompts to enhance students’ source evaluation and multiple-text comprehension. Participants were 72 undergraduates who read a set of digital texts on a controversial topic of smartphone use and mental health, wrote a justification statement for their selection of trustworthy texts, and answered open-ended comprehension questions. To explore the optimal presentation conditions, this study varied the presentation format (matrix vs. question) and frequency (once vs. repeated) of prompts. The results showed that participants benefited more from the matrix prompt than the question prompt in source evaluation and multiple-text comprehension. An interaction effect occurred only in multiple-text comprehension, indicating that repeated prompting via matrix was an optimal approach to facilitate integration of text information. In addition, participants perceived less cognitive load when matrix was presented than when questions were presented. Taken together, these results have classroom implications for instructors to consider both the format and frequency of presenting prompts to facilitate source evaluation and comprehension of multiple conflicting-view articles.","PeriodicalId":46567,"journal":{"name":"Reading Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2022.2156949","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract This study investigated how and how often to present prompts to enhance students’ source evaluation and multiple-text comprehension. Participants were 72 undergraduates who read a set of digital texts on a controversial topic of smartphone use and mental health, wrote a justification statement for their selection of trustworthy texts, and answered open-ended comprehension questions. To explore the optimal presentation conditions, this study varied the presentation format (matrix vs. question) and frequency (once vs. repeated) of prompts. The results showed that participants benefited more from the matrix prompt than the question prompt in source evaluation and multiple-text comprehension. An interaction effect occurred only in multiple-text comprehension, indicating that repeated prompting via matrix was an optimal approach to facilitate integration of text information. In addition, participants perceived less cognitive load when matrix was presented than when questions were presented. Taken together, these results have classroom implications for instructors to consider both the format and frequency of presenting prompts to facilitate source evaluation and comprehension of multiple conflicting-view articles.
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
提示语的格式和频率对原文评价和多文本理解的影响
摘要本研究调查了如何以及多久提示一次,以提高学生的来源评价和多文本理解。参与者是72名本科生,他们阅读了一组关于智能手机使用和心理健康的有争议话题的数字文本,为他们选择的值得信赖的文本写了一份理由声明,并回答了开放式理解问题。为了探索最佳的演示条件,本研究改变了提示的演示格式(矩阵与问题)和频率(一次与重复)。结果表明,在源评价和多语篇理解中,参与者从矩阵提示中受益大于问题提示。交互效应只出现在多文本理解中,表明通过矩阵的重复提示是促进文本信息整合的最佳方法。此外,当呈现矩阵时,参与者感知到的认知负荷比呈现问题时更少。总之,这些结果对教师考虑提示的格式和频率具有课堂意义,以促进对多篇观点冲突文章的来源评估和理解。
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
Reading Psychology
Reading Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Prepared exclusively by professionals, this refereed journal publishes original manuscripts in the fields of literacy, reading, and related psychology disciplines. Articles appear in the form of completed research; practitioner-based "experiential" methods or philosophical statements; teacher and counselor preparation services for guiding all levels of reading skill development, attitudes, and interests; programs or materials; and literary or humorous contributions.
期刊最新文献
Unhinged: Reading Comprehension Tests as Gatekeepers to Teaching The Regularity of High-Frequency Words (Sight Words): Teacher Phonetic Knowledge is Key Investigating the Mechanisms Behind Relations Between Academic Language and Reading Comprehension: The Role of Reading Self-Concept and Reading Enjoyment An Exploration of the Impact of Quality Illustrations in Children’s Picture Books on Preschool Student Narrative Ability Metalinguistic Effects on English Spelling: A Structural Equation Model for Early Literacy Instruction
×
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