多元互补文本学习中提高问答策略的干预研究

IF 3.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Reading Research Quarterly Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.1002/rrq.451
N. Castells, Marta Minguela, Isabel Solé, Mariana Miras, Esther Nadal, Gert Rijlaarsdam
{"title":"多元互补文本学习中提高问答策略的干预研究","authors":"N. Castells, Marta Minguela, Isabel Solé, Mariana Miras, Esther Nadal, Gert Rijlaarsdam","doi":"10.1002/rrq.451","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Studies have shown that inferential questions encourage a more in- depth understanding of texts and that students need to learn appropriate strategies for answering them, particularly when they deal with multiple texts. In this experimental study, the authors aimed to improve eighth- grade students’ (13- to 14- years old) ability to answer intra- and intertextual inferential questions when they read one or multiple complementary texts. The intervention was implemented by a group of middle- school history teachers. Teachers in both the intervention and control groups (IG and CG, respectively) taught the same teaching unit using the same reading materials. However, teachers in the IG participated in 12 hours of professional development seminars on analysis of their classroom practice and how to improve their questioning strategies. Post- intervention results revealed that students in the IG were significantly better than those in the CG at answering intra- and intertextual inferential questions. This difference was maintained at follow- up (2 months after finishing the intervention). Students in the IG also performed better than those in the CG at a learning test. These results confirm the value of teaching students how to answer complex questions, especially when they refer to more than one text. The findings also support the value of the professional development program that enables teachers to reflect on their practice.","PeriodicalId":48160,"journal":{"name":"Reading Research Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving Questioning–Answering Strategies in Learning from Multiple Complementary Texts: An Intervention Study\",\"authors\":\"N. Castells, Marta Minguela, Isabel Solé, Mariana Miras, Esther Nadal, Gert Rijlaarsdam\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/rrq.451\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Studies have shown that inferential questions encourage a more in- depth understanding of texts and that students need to learn appropriate strategies for answering them, particularly when they deal with multiple texts. In this experimental study, the authors aimed to improve eighth- grade students’ (13- to 14- years old) ability to answer intra- and intertextual inferential questions when they read one or multiple complementary texts. The intervention was implemented by a group of middle- school history teachers. Teachers in both the intervention and control groups (IG and CG, respectively) taught the same teaching unit using the same reading materials. However, teachers in the IG participated in 12 hours of professional development seminars on analysis of their classroom practice and how to improve their questioning strategies. Post- intervention results revealed that students in the IG were significantly better than those in the CG at answering intra- and intertextual inferential questions. This difference was maintained at follow- up (2 months after finishing the intervention). Students in the IG also performed better than those in the CG at a learning test. These results confirm the value of teaching students how to answer complex questions, especially when they refer to more than one text. The findings also support the value of the professional development program that enables teachers to reflect on their practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reading Research Quarterly\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reading Research Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.451\",\"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":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.451","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: 6

摘要

研究表明,推理问题鼓励更深入地理解文本,学生需要学习适当的策略来回答这些问题,特别是当他们处理多个文本时。在这项实验研究中,作者旨在提高八年级学生(13- 14岁)在阅读一个或多个补充文本时回答文本内和文本间推理问题的能力。干预是由一组中学历史教师实施的。干预组和对照组(分别为IG组和CG组)的教师使用相同的阅读材料教授相同的教学单元。然而,IG的教师参加了12小时的专业发展研讨会,分析他们的课堂实践以及如何改进他们的提问策略。干预后结果显示,IG组学生在回答文内和文间推理问题上明显优于CG组学生。这种差异在随访中(干预结束后2个月)保持不变。在一项学习测试中,IG组的学生也比CG组的学生表现更好。这些结果证实了教学生如何回答复杂问题的价值,特别是当他们参考多个文本时。研究结果也支持专业发展计划的价值,使教师能够反思他们的实践。
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
Improving Questioning–Answering Strategies in Learning from Multiple Complementary Texts: An Intervention Study
Studies have shown that inferential questions encourage a more in- depth understanding of texts and that students need to learn appropriate strategies for answering them, particularly when they deal with multiple texts. In this experimental study, the authors aimed to improve eighth- grade students’ (13- to 14- years old) ability to answer intra- and intertextual inferential questions when they read one or multiple complementary texts. The intervention was implemented by a group of middle- school history teachers. Teachers in both the intervention and control groups (IG and CG, respectively) taught the same teaching unit using the same reading materials. However, teachers in the IG participated in 12 hours of professional development seminars on analysis of their classroom practice and how to improve their questioning strategies. Post- intervention results revealed that students in the IG were significantly better than those in the CG at answering intra- and intertextual inferential questions. This difference was maintained at follow- up (2 months after finishing the intervention). Students in the IG also performed better than those in the CG at a learning test. These results confirm the value of teaching students how to answer complex questions, especially when they refer to more than one text. The findings also support the value of the professional development program that enables teachers to reflect on their practice.
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