低识字能力成人的评估:方法综述

Katarzyna Chyl, A. Dębska, Artur Pokropek, Marcin Szczerbiński, Łukasz Lech Tanaś, Michał Sitek
{"title":"低识字能力成人的评估:方法综述","authors":"Katarzyna Chyl, A. Dębska, Artur Pokropek, Marcin Szczerbiński, Łukasz Lech Tanaś, Michał Sitek","doi":"10.3389/feduc.2024.1346073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper reviews the methods for assessing different components of reading skills in adults with reading difficulties, along with functional reading skills. We are particularly interested in the assessment methods available to researchers and practitioners, developed predominantly in the research context, and not available solely in English. We discuss the large-scale international study, PIAAC, as an example of a framework for such assessments. Furthermore, we cover the following types of assessment tools: (1) self-assessment questionnaires, probing into comprehension difficulties and reading habits; (2) measures of print exposure, such as author recognition tests, correlating with other reading-related skills; (3) measures of word recognition and decoding, including reading aloud of words and pseudowords, as well as silent lexical decision tasks; (4) fill-in-the-blank tasks and sentence reading tasks, measuring predominantly local comprehension, entangled with decoding skills; (5) comprehension of longer reading passages and texts, focusing on functional texts. We discuss comprehension types measured by tests, text types, answer formats, and the dependence problem, i.e., reading comprehension tests that can be solved correctly without reading. Finally, we tap into the new ideas emerging from the AI systems evaluation, e.g., using questions generated from news articles or Wikipedia or asked directly by search engines users. In the concluding section, we comment on the significance of incorporating background information, motivation, and self-efficacy into the assessment of adult literacy skills.","PeriodicalId":508739,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Education","volume":"84 19","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of adults with low literacy skills: a review of methods\",\"authors\":\"Katarzyna Chyl, A. Dębska, Artur Pokropek, Marcin Szczerbiński, Łukasz Lech Tanaś, Michał Sitek\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/feduc.2024.1346073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper reviews the methods for assessing different components of reading skills in adults with reading difficulties, along with functional reading skills. We are particularly interested in the assessment methods available to researchers and practitioners, developed predominantly in the research context, and not available solely in English. We discuss the large-scale international study, PIAAC, as an example of a framework for such assessments. Furthermore, we cover the following types of assessment tools: (1) self-assessment questionnaires, probing into comprehension difficulties and reading habits; (2) measures of print exposure, such as author recognition tests, correlating with other reading-related skills; (3) measures of word recognition and decoding, including reading aloud of words and pseudowords, as well as silent lexical decision tasks; (4) fill-in-the-blank tasks and sentence reading tasks, measuring predominantly local comprehension, entangled with decoding skills; (5) comprehension of longer reading passages and texts, focusing on functional texts. We discuss comprehension types measured by tests, text types, answer formats, and the dependence problem, i.e., reading comprehension tests that can be solved correctly without reading. Finally, we tap into the new ideas emerging from the AI systems evaluation, e.g., using questions generated from news articles or Wikipedia or asked directly by search engines users. In the concluding section, we comment on the significance of incorporating background information, motivation, and self-efficacy into the assessment of adult literacy skills.\",\"PeriodicalId\":508739,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Education\",\"volume\":\"84 19\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1346073\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1346073","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文回顾了对有阅读困难的成年人的不同阅读技能以及功能性阅读技能进行评估的方法。我们对可供研究人员和从业人员使用的评估方法特别感兴趣,这些方法主要是在研究背景下开发的,而且并非只有英语版本。我们以大规模国际研究 PIAAC 为例,讨论了此类评估的框架。此外,我们还介绍了以下几种评估工具:(1)自我评估问卷,探究理解困难和阅读习惯;(2)印刷品接触测量,如作者识别测试,与其他阅读相关技能相关;(3)单词识别和解码测量,包括单词和假词朗读,以及无声词汇判断任务;(4)填空任务和句子阅读任务,主要测量局部理解,与解码技能相关;(5)较长阅读段落和文章的理解,侧重于功能性文章。我们讨论了测试测量的理解类型、文本类型、答案格式以及依赖性问题,即不阅读也能正确解答的阅读理解测试。最后,我们探讨了人工智能系统评估中出现的新想法,例如使用从新闻文章或维基百科中生成的问题,或由搜索引擎用户直接提出的问题。在结论部分,我们对将背景信息、动机和自我效能纳入成人识字技能评估的意义进行了评论。
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
Assessment of adults with low literacy skills: a review of methods
The paper reviews the methods for assessing different components of reading skills in adults with reading difficulties, along with functional reading skills. We are particularly interested in the assessment methods available to researchers and practitioners, developed predominantly in the research context, and not available solely in English. We discuss the large-scale international study, PIAAC, as an example of a framework for such assessments. Furthermore, we cover the following types of assessment tools: (1) self-assessment questionnaires, probing into comprehension difficulties and reading habits; (2) measures of print exposure, such as author recognition tests, correlating with other reading-related skills; (3) measures of word recognition and decoding, including reading aloud of words and pseudowords, as well as silent lexical decision tasks; (4) fill-in-the-blank tasks and sentence reading tasks, measuring predominantly local comprehension, entangled with decoding skills; (5) comprehension of longer reading passages and texts, focusing on functional texts. We discuss comprehension types measured by tests, text types, answer formats, and the dependence problem, i.e., reading comprehension tests that can be solved correctly without reading. Finally, we tap into the new ideas emerging from the AI systems evaluation, e.g., using questions generated from news articles or Wikipedia or asked directly by search engines users. In the concluding section, we comment on the significance of incorporating background information, motivation, and self-efficacy into the assessment of adult literacy skills.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Future skills for Industry 4.0 integration and innovative learning for continuing engineering education Enhancing institutional integration and enjoyment among Saudi female physical education students: exploring the mediation of motivation and psychological needs satisfaction Scientific creativity in secondary students and its relationship with STEM-related attitudes, engagement and work intentions Instructor enthusiasm in online lectures: how vocal enthusiasm impacts student engagement, learning, and memory Flipping the anatomy classroom: a comparative analysis of 16-week and 8-week courses in a community college
×
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