使用眼动追踪方法预测阅读理解

IF 3.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Reading Research Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-04-04 DOI:10.1002/rrq.498
Diane C. Mézière, Lili Yu, Erik D. Reichle, Titus von der Malsburg, Genevieve McArthur
{"title":"使用眼动追踪方法预测阅读理解","authors":"Diane C. Mézière, Lili Yu, Erik D. Reichle, Titus von der Malsburg, Genevieve McArthur","doi":"10.1002/rrq.498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study examined the potential of eye‐tracking as a tool for assessing reading comprehension. We administered three widely used reading comprehension tests with varying task demands to 79 typical adult readers while monitoring their eye movements. In the York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension (YARC), participants were given passages of text to read silently, followed by comprehension questions. In the Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT‐5), participants were given passages of text to read aloud, followed by comprehension questions. In the sentence comprehension subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT‐4), participants were asked to provide a missing word in sentences that they read silently (i.e., a cloze task). Linear models predicting comprehension scores from eye‐tracking measures yielded different results for the three tests. Eye‐tracking measures explained significantly more variance than reading‐speed data for the YARC (four times better), GORT (three times better), and the WRAT (1.3 time better). Importantly, there was no common strong predictor for all three tests. These results support growing recognition that reading comprehension tests do not measure the same cognitive processes, and that participants adapt their reading strategies to the tests' varying task demands. This study also suggests that eye‐tracking may provide a useful alternative for measuring reading comprehension.","PeriodicalId":48160,"journal":{"name":"Reading Research Quarterly","volume":"83 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using <scp>Eye‐Tracking</scp> Measures to Predict Reading Comprehension\",\"authors\":\"Diane C. Mézière, Lili Yu, Erik D. Reichle, Titus von der Malsburg, Genevieve McArthur\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/rrq.498\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This study examined the potential of eye‐tracking as a tool for assessing reading comprehension. We administered three widely used reading comprehension tests with varying task demands to 79 typical adult readers while monitoring their eye movements. In the York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension (YARC), participants were given passages of text to read silently, followed by comprehension questions. In the Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT‐5), participants were given passages of text to read aloud, followed by comprehension questions. In the sentence comprehension subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT‐4), participants were asked to provide a missing word in sentences that they read silently (i.e., a cloze task). Linear models predicting comprehension scores from eye‐tracking measures yielded different results for the three tests. Eye‐tracking measures explained significantly more variance than reading‐speed data for the YARC (four times better), GORT (three times better), and the WRAT (1.3 time better). Importantly, there was no common strong predictor for all three tests. These results support growing recognition that reading comprehension tests do not measure the same cognitive processes, and that participants adapt their reading strategies to the tests' varying task demands. This study also suggests that eye‐tracking may provide a useful alternative for measuring reading comprehension.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reading Research Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"83 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reading Research Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.498\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading Research Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.498","RegionNum":1,"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

摘要

本研究考察了眼动追踪作为评估阅读理解能力工具的潜力。我们对79名典型的成年读者进行了三项广泛使用的不同任务要求的阅读理解测试,同时监测了他们的眼球运动。在约克阅读理解评估(YARC)中,参与者被要求默读文本段落,然后回答理解问题。在格雷口语阅读测试(GORT‐5)中,参与者被要求大声朗读文本段落,然后回答理解问题。在宽范围成就测试(WRAT‐4)的句子理解子测试中,参与者被要求在他们默读的句子中提供一个缺失的单词(即完形填空任务)。从眼动追踪测量中预测理解分数的线性模型在三个测试中产生了不同的结果。眼动追踪测量比YARC(好4倍)、GORT(好3倍)和WRAT(好1.3倍)的阅读速度数据解释了更多的差异。重要的是,这三种测试没有共同的强预测因子。这些结果支持了越来越多的认识,即阅读理解测试并不测量相同的认知过程,参与者根据测试的不同任务要求调整他们的阅读策略。这项研究还表明,眼动追踪可能为测量阅读理解能力提供了一种有用的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Using Eye‐Tracking Measures to Predict Reading Comprehension
ABSTRACT This study examined the potential of eye‐tracking as a tool for assessing reading comprehension. We administered three widely used reading comprehension tests with varying task demands to 79 typical adult readers while monitoring their eye movements. In the York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension (YARC), participants were given passages of text to read silently, followed by comprehension questions. In the Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT‐5), participants were given passages of text to read aloud, followed by comprehension questions. In the sentence comprehension subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT‐4), participants were asked to provide a missing word in sentences that they read silently (i.e., a cloze task). Linear models predicting comprehension scores from eye‐tracking measures yielded different results for the three tests. Eye‐tracking measures explained significantly more variance than reading‐speed data for the YARC (four times better), GORT (three times better), and the WRAT (1.3 time better). Importantly, there was no common strong predictor for all three tests. These results support growing recognition that reading comprehension tests do not measure the same cognitive processes, and that participants adapt their reading strategies to the tests' varying task demands. This study also suggests that eye‐tracking may provide a useful alternative for measuring reading comprehension.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: For more than 40 years, Reading Research Quarterly has been essential reading for those committed to scholarship on literacy among learners of all ages. The leading research journal in the field, each issue of RRQ includes •Reports of important studies •Multidisciplinary research •Various modes of investigation •Diverse viewpoints on literacy practices, teaching, and learning
期刊最新文献
Civic Place Literacies: Tracing Urban Migrant Girls' Democratic Meaning‐Making Through Virtual Transnational Practitioner Research Chronotopes of Transnational Literacies: How Youth Live and Imagine Social Worlds in their Digital Media Practices Fair or Foul? Interrogating the Role of Baseball Knowledge in Studies of Knowledge and Comprehension “It's Like They Are Using Our Data Against Us.” Counter‐Cartographies of AI Literacy To Become an Object Among Objects: Generative Artificial “Intelligence,” Writing, and Linguistic White Supremacy
×
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