Impact of text availability and question format on reading comprehension processes

Contemporary Educational Psychology

Volumn 51, Issue , 2017, Pages 404-415

  Ferrer, Antonio ^a   Vidal Abarca, Eduardo ^a   Serrano, Maria Ángeles ^a   Gilabert, Ramiro ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Question answering; Question format; Reading comprehension assessment; Text availability

Indexed keywords

EID: 85031783751     PISSN: 0361476X     EISSN: 10902384     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Agarwal, P.K., Roediger, H.L. III, Expectancy of an open-book test decreases performance on a delayed closed-book test. Memory 19:8 (2011), 836–852.
2. Anderson, J.R., A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22 (1983), 261–295.
3. Artelt, C., Schiefele, U., Schneider, W., Predictors of reading literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education 16:3 (2001), 363–383.
4. Campbell, J.R., Cognitive processes elicited by multiple-choice and constructed-response questions on an assessment of reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1999, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
5. Cerdán, R., Gilabert, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Selecting information to answer questions: Strategic individual differences when searching texts. Learning and Individual Differences 21:2 (2011), 201–205.
6. Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Gilabert, R., Gil, L., Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction 19:1 (2009), 13–27.
7. Cordon, L.A., Day, J.D., Strategy use on standardized reading comprehension tests. Journal of Educational Psychology 88:2 (1996), 288–295.
8. Dunlosky, J., Metcalfe, J., Metacognition. 2009, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
9. Gil, L., Martinez, T., Vidal-Abarca, E., Online assessment of strategic reading literacy skills. Computers & Education 82 (2015), 50–59.
10. Graesser, A.C., Ozuru, Y., Sullins, J., What is a good question?. McKeown, M., Kucan, L., (eds.) Bringing reading research to life, 2010, Guilford Press, New York, NY, 112–141.
11. Graesser, A., Singer, M., Trabasso, T., Constructing inferences during narrative comprehension. Psychological Review 101 (1994), 371–395.
12. Higgs, K., Magliano, J.P., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., McNamara, D.S., Bridging skill and task-oriented reading. Discourse Processes 54:1 (2017), 19–39.
13. Kaakinen, J.K., Hyönä, J., Perspective effects in repeated reading: An eye movement study. Memory & Cognition 35:6 (2007), 1323–1336.
14. Kintsch, W., Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. 1998, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
15. Little, J.L., Bjork, E.L., Bjork, R.A., Angello, G., Multiple-choice tests exonerated, at least of some charges fostering test-induced learning and avoiding test-induced forgetting. Psychological Science 23:11 (2012), 1337–1344.
16. Magliano, J.P., Millis, K.K., Ozuru, Y., McNamara, D.S., A multidimensional framework to evaluate reading assessment tools. McNamara, D.S., (eds.) Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies, 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, US, 107–136.
17. Mañá, A., Vidal-Abarca, E., Salmerón, L., Effect of delay on search decisions in a task-oriented reading environment. Metacognition and Learning 12:1 (2017), 113–130.
18. Martinez, M.E., Cognition and the question of test item format. Educational Psychologist 34:4 (1999), 207–218.
19. Martínez, T., Vidal-Abarca, E., Gil, L., Gilabert, R., On-line assessment of comprehension processes. The Spanish Journal of Psychology 12:1 (2009), 308–319.
20. Martínez, T., Vidal-Abarca, E., Sellés, P., Gilabert, R., Evaluación de las estrategias y procesos de comprensión: el Test de Procesos de Comprensión. Infancia y Aprendizaje 31:3 (2008), 319–332.
21. McDaniel, M.A., Einstein, G.O., Dunay, P.K., Cobb, R.E., Encoding difficulty and memory: Toward a unifying theory. Journal of Memory and Language 25:6 (1986), 645–656.
22. McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B., Kintsch, W., Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction 14:1 (1996), 1–43.
23. McNamara, D.S., Magliano, J., Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 51 (2009), 297–384.
24. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., Drucker, K.T., Pirls 2011 international results in reading. 2012, TIMMS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.
25. Myers, J.L., O'Brien, E.J., Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes 26 (1998), 131–157.
26. Narvaez, D., Van Den Broek, P., Ruiz, A.B., The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 1999, 488.
27. OECD (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science. (Volume I).
28. OECD, OECD skills outlook 2013: First results from the survey of adult skills. 2013, OECD Publishing.
29. Ozuru, Y., Best, R., Bell, C., Witherspoon, A., McNamara, D.S., Influence of question format and text availability on the assessment of expository text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction 25:4 (2007), 399–438.
30. Ozuru, Y., Briner, S., Kurby, C.A., McNamara, D.S., Comparing comprehension measured by multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 67:3 (2013), 215–227.
31. Pearson, P.D., Garavaglia, D., Lycke, K., Roberts, E., Danridge, J., Hamm, D., The impact of item format on the depth of students’ cognitive engagement. 1999, Technical Report, American Institute for Research, Washington, DC.
32. Ramos, L., Vidal-Abarca, E., Diferencias entre estudiantes con alta y baja competencia lectora: un estudio con metodología de pensar en voz alta [Differences between skilled and less-skilled reading literacy students: A think-aloud study]. Cultura y Educación 25:3 (2013), 295–308.
33. Roelle, J., Berthold, K., Effects of incorporating retrieval into learning tasks: The complexity of the tasks matters. Learning and Instruction 49 (2017), 142–156.
34. Rouet, J.F., Britt, M.A., Durik, A.M., RESOLV: Readers' representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist 52 (2017), 1–16.
35. Sabatini, J., Petscher, Y., O'Reilly, T., Truckenmiller, A., Improving comprehension assessment for middle and high school students: challenges and opportunities. Santi, K.L., Reed, D.K., (eds.) Improving reading comprehension of middle and high school students, Vol. 10, 2015, Springer, New York, 119–151.
36. Schaffner, E., Schiefele, U., The prediction of reading comprehension by cognitive and motivational factors: Does text accessibility during comprehension testing make a difference?. Learning and Individual Differences 26 (2013), 42–54.
37. Schotter, E.R., Tran, R., Rayner, K., Don't believe what you read (only once) comprehension is supported by regressions during reading. Psychological Science 25:6 (2014), 1218–1226.
38. Schroeder, S., What readers have and do: Effects of students’ verbal ability and reading time components on comprehension with and without text availability. Journal of Educational Psychology 103:4 (2011), 877–896.
39. van den Broek, P., Helder, A., Cognitive processes in discourse comprehension: passive processes, reader-initiated processes, and evolving mental representations. Discourse Processes, 2017, 1–13.
40. van den Broek, P., Rapp, D.N., Kendeou, P., Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes 39:2–3 (2005), 299–316.
41. van den Broek, P., Risden, K., Husebye-Hartmann, E., The role of readers’ standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. Lorch, R.F. Jr., O'Brien, E.J., (eds.) Sources of coherence in reading, 1995, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 353–373.
42. van den Broek, P., Risden, K., Fletcher, C.R., Thurlow, R., A “landscape” view of reading: Fluctuating patterns of activation and the construction of a stable memory representation. Britton, B.K., Graesser, A.C., (eds.) Models of understanding text, 1996, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, England, 165–187.
43. van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., Linderholm, T., The landscape model of reading. van Oostendorp, H., Goldman, S.R., (eds.) The construction of mental representations during reading, 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 71–98.
44. Vidal-Abarca, E., Máñez, I., Martínez, T., & Magliano, J.P. (2017). Are verbal and behavioral online data harmonious in tracing individual differences in task-oriented reading situations? In Paper presented at the EARLI SIG-27 Biennial Conference in Oulu, Finland.
45. Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., Gil, L., Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology 102:4 (2010), 817–826.
46. Vidal-Abarca, E., Martinez, T., Salmerón, L., Cerdán, R., Gilabert, R., Gil, L., Ferris, R., Recording online processes in task-oriented reading with Read&Answer. Behavior Research Methods 43:1 (2011), 179–192.
47. Vidal-Abarca, E., Salmerón, L., Mañá, A., Individual differences in task-oriented reading. McCrudden, M.T., Magliano, J.P., Schraw, G., (eds.) Text relevance and learning from text, 2011, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 267–294.
48. Yeari, M., van den Broek, P., Oudega, M., Processing and memory of central versus peripheral information as a function of reading goals: Evidence from eye-movements. Reading and Writing 28:8 (2015), 1071–1097.