Comparing comprehension measured by multiple-choice and open-ended questions

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 215-227

  Ozuru, Yasuhiro ^a   Briner, Stephen ^b   Kurby, Christopher A ^c   McNamara, Danielle S ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^c GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

learning; measurement of comprehension; memory; reading comprehension

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; READING; RECALL; SELF REPORT; SEMANTICS; STATISTICS; STUDENT; UNIVERSITY;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; LANGUAGE; MALE; MENTAL RECALL; QUESTIONNAIRES; READING; SELF REPORT; SEMANTICS; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; STUDENTS; UNIVERSITIES; VOCABULARY;

EID: 84884548310     PISSN: 11961961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0032918     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Adams, J., & Collins, A. (1979). A schema-theoretic view of reading. In R. O. Freedle (Eds.), New directions in discourse processing, Vol. 2: Advances in discourse processes. Norwood, NJ, USA: Ablex.
2. Aggleton, J. P., & Shaw, C. (1996). Amnesia and recognition memory: A re-analysis of psychometric data: Neuropsychologia, 34, 51-62. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(95)00150-
3. Anderson, R. C. (1972). How to construct achievement tests to assess comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 42, 145-170.
4. Anderson, R. C. (1984). Role of the reader's schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In R. C. Anderson & R. J. Tierney (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools: Basal readers and content texts (pp. 372-384). Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Erlbaum.
5. Bastin, C., & Van der Linden, M. (2003). The contribution of recollection and familiarity to recognition memory. Neuropsychology, 17, 14-24. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.17.1.14 (Pubitemid 36194080)
6. Campbell, J. R. (1999). Cognitive processes elicited by multiple-choice and constructed-response questions on an assessment of reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
7. Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
8. Cook, A. E., Halleran, J. G., & O'Brien, E. J. (1998). What is readily available? A memory-based view of text processing. Discourse Processes, 26, 109-129. doi:10.1080/01638539809545041
9. Cook, A. E., & Myers, J. L. (2004). Processing discourse roles in scripted narratives: The influence of context and world knowledge. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 268-288. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2003.11.003 (Pubitemid 38457686)
10. Goldman, S. R., & Durán, R. P. (1988). Answering questions from oceanography texts: Learner, task and text characteristics. Discourse Processes, 11, 373-412. doi:10.1080/01638538809544710
11. Graesser, A. C., Ozuru, Y., & Sullins, J. (2010). What is a good question? In M. McKeown & L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing reading research to life (pp. 112-141). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
12. Jacoby, L. L. (1996). Dissociating automatic and consciously-controlled effects of study/test compatibility. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 32-52. (Pubitemid 126167369)
13. Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 528-558. doi: 10.1080/09541440601056620 (Pubitemid 47027000)
14. Khoe, W., Kroll, N. E. A., Yonelinas, A. P., Dobbins, I. G., & Knight, R. T. (2000). The contribution of recollection and familiarity to yes-no and forced-choice tests in healthy subjects and amnesiacs. Neuropsychologia, 38, 1333-1341. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00055- (Pubitemid 30408119)
15. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
16. Kintsch, W. (1993). Information accretion and reduction in text processing: Inferences. Discourse Processes, 16, 193-202. doi:10.1080/ 01638539309544837
17. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY, USA: Erlbaum.
18. Leahey, T. H., & Harris, R. J. (1997). Learning and cognition. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
19. Long, D. L., & Lea, B. R. (2005). Have we been searching for meaning in all the wrong places? Defining the "search after meaning" principle in comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 279-298. (Pubitemid 40758056)
20. Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 251-283. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2103-02 (Pubitemid 37083842)
21. Magliano, J. P., Millis, K., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A multidimensional framework to evaluate reading assessment tools. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 107-136). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum
22. McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1-30. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3801-1
23. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1401-1 (Pubitemid 126311608)
24. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288. doi:10.1080/01638539609544975
25. McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Self-explanation and metacognition: The dynamics of reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 60-81). New York, NY, USA: Routledge.
26. McNamara, D. S., O'Reilly, T. P., Best, R. M., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students' reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 147-171. doi:10.2190/1RU5-HDTJ-A5C8-JVWE (Pubitemid 44877313)
27. Morris, D. M., Bransford, J. S., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing vs. transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 519-533. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9
28. Noordman, L. G., Vonk, W., & Kempff, H. J. (1992). Readers' knowledge and the control of inferences in reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7, 373-391. doi:10.1080/01690969208409392
29. O'Reilly, T., Best, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2004). Self-explanation reading training: Effects for low-knowledge readers. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1053-1058). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum.
30. Ozuru, Y., Best, R., Bell, C., Witherspoon, A., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Influence of question format and text availability on the assessment of expository text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 25, 399-438. doi:10.1080/07370000701632371
31. Ozuru, Y., Kurby, C. A., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). The effect of metacomprehension judgment task on comprehension monitoring and metacognitive accuracy. Metacognition and Learning.
32. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249-255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x (Pubitemid 43344734)
33. Rumelhart, D. (1985). Toward an interactive model of reading. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 722-750). Newark, DE, USA: International Reading Association.
34. Singer, M., & Remillard, G. (2004). Controlled and automatic influences in text retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1223-1237. doi:10.3758/BF03206314 (Pubitemid 40524871)
35. van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299-316. (Pubitemid 40758057)
36. Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 441-517. doi:10.1006/jmla.2002.2864