How do students process complex formative feedback in question-answering tasks? A think-aloud study

Metacognition and Learning

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2019, Pages 65-87

  Máñez, Ignacio ^a   Vidal Abarca, Eduardo ^a   Kendeou, Panayiota ^b   Martínez, Tomás ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Formative feedback; Metacognitive processes; Question answering; Reading comprehension; Think aloud

Indexed keywords

EID: 85064267131     PISSN: 15561623     EISSN: 15561631     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11409-019-09192-w     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18–32. 10.1037/a0022086.
2. Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1816–1828. 10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.023.
3. Anmarkrud, Ø., McCrudden, M. T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). Task-oriented reading of multiple documents: Online comprehension processes and offline products. Instructional Science, 41(5), 873–894. 10.1007/s11251-013-9263-8.
4. Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Kendeou, P. (2014). The interplay of reader goals, working memory, and text structure during reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 206–219. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.003.
5. Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 209–222. 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.209.
6. Cerdán, R., Gilabert, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2011). Selecting information to answer questions: Strategic individual differences when searching texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(2), 201–205. 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.007.
7. Cerdán, R., Gilabert, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2013). Self-generated explanations on the question demands are not always helpful. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16(e26), 1–11. 10.1017/sjp.2013.45.
8. Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23–38. 10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003.
9. Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition: A textbook for cognitive, educational, life span and applied psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
10. Farr, R., Pritchard, R., & Smitten, B. (1990). A description of what happens when an examinee takes a multiple-choice reading comprehension test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(3), 209–226. 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1990.tb00744.x.
11. Fox, M. C., Ericsson, K. A., & Best, R. (2011). Do procedures for verbal reporting of thinking have to be reactive? A meta-analysis and recommendations for best reporting methods. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 316–344. 10.1037/a0021663.
12. Fox, J.-P., Klein Entink, R., & Timmers, C. (2014). The joint multivariate modeling of multiple mixed response sources: Relating student performances with feedback behavior. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(1), 54–66. 10.1080/00273171.2013.843441.
13. Fyfe, E. R., Rittle-Johnson, B., & DeCaro, M. S. (2012). The effects of feedback during exploratory mathematics problem solving: Prior knowledge matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1094–1108. 10.1037/a0028389.
14. Graesser, A. C., & Murachver, T. (1985). Symbolic procedures of question answering. In A. C. Graesser & J. B. Black (Eds.), The psychology of questions (pp. 15–88). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
15. Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–271). New York: Routledge.
16. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. 10.3102/003465430298487.
17. Jordan, S. (2012). Student engagement with assessment and feedback: Some lessons from short-answer free-text e-assessment questions. Computers & Education, 58(2), 818–834. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.007.
18. Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2016). Prior knowledge: Acquisition and revision. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text and context (pp. 151–163). New York: Routledge.
19. Kendeou, P., McMaster, K. L., & Christ, T. J. (2016). Reading comprehension: Core components and processes. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 62–69. 10.1177/2372732215624707.
20. Krause, U.-M., Stark, R., & Mandl, H. (2009). The effects of cooperative learning and feedback on e-learning in statistics. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 158–170. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.003.
21. Llorens, A. C., Gil, L., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Mañá, A., & Gilabert, R. (2011). Evaluación de la competencia lectora: la prueba de Competencia Lectora para Educación Secundaria (CompLEC). Psicothema, 23(4), 808–817.
22. Llorens, A. C., Vidal-Abarca, E., Cerdán, R., & Ávila, V. (2015). Does formative feedback on search behavior help students in answering comprehension questions from an available text? Infancia y Aprendizaje, 38(4), 808–841. 10.1080/02103702.2015.1076269.
23. Llorens, A. C., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Cerdán, R. (2016). Formative feedback to transfer self-regulation of task-oriented reading strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(4), 314–331. 10.1111/jcal.12134.
24. Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 21(3), 251–283. 10.1207/S1532690XCI2103_02.
25. Maier, U., Wolf, N., & Randler, C. (2016). Effects of a computer-assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different feedback types. Computers & Education, 95, 85–98. 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.002.
26. Máñez, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Martínez, T. (2016, July). Accuracy to select relevant text information to answer questions from a text. Paper presented at the 26th annual meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Kassel, Germany.
27. Martínez, T., Vidal-Abarca, E., Sellés, P., & Gilabert, R. (2008). Evaluation of comprehension strategies and processes: Test of comprehension processes (TCP). Infancia y Aprendizaje, 31(3), 319–332. 10.1174/021037008785702956.
28. Martínez, T., Vidal-Abarca, E., Gil, L., & Gilabert, R. (2009). On-line assessment of comprehension processes. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(1), 308–319. 10.1017/S1138741600001700.
29. Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113. 10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021811.66966.1d.
30. Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 745–783). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
31. Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merril, J. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 125–144). New York: Erlbaum.
32. Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multi-media learning. In H. M. Niegemann, D. Leutner, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 181–195). Münster: Waxmann.
33. Narciss, S., Sosnovsky, S., Schnaubert, L., Andrès, E., Eichelmann, A., Goguadze, G., & Melis, E. (2014). Exploring feedback and student characteristics relevant for personalizing feedback strategies. Computers & Education, 71, 56–76. 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.011.
34. Ness, M. (2011). Explicit reading comprehension instruction in elementary classrooms: Teacher use of reading comprehension strategies. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(1), 98–117. 10.1080/02568543.2010.531076.
35. Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 13–36). San Diego: Academic Press.
36. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth-grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(2), 159–194. 10.1207/s1532799xssr0202_4.
38. Ramos, J. L., & Cuetos, F. (1999). PROLEC-SE: Evaluación de los procesos lectores en alumnos de tercer ciclo de educación primaria y secundaria. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
39. Ramos, L., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2013). Differences between students with high and low reading literacy skills: A study with think aloud methodology. Cultura y Educación, 25(3), 295–308. 10.1174/113564013807749722.
40. Roelle, J., & Berthold, K. (2017). Effects of incorporating retrieval into learning tasks: The complexity of the tasks matters. Learning and Instruction, 49(2), 142–156. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.008.
41. Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers' representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215. 10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015.
42. Rupp, A. A., Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: A cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing, 23(4), 441–474. 10.1191/0265532206lt337oa.
43. Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H. I., Kammerer, Y., Stadtler, M., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Comprehension processes in digital reading. In M. Barzillai, J. Thomson, S. Schroeder, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Learning to read in a digital world (pp. 91–120). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
44. Schooler, J. W. (2011). Introspecting in the spirit of William James: Comment on Fox, Ericsson, and Best (2011). Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 345–350. 10.1037/a0022390.
45. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. 10.3102/0034654307313795.
46. Timmers, C. F., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2011). Attention paid to feedback provided by a computer-based assessment for learning on information literacy. Computers & Education, 56(3), 923–930. 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.007.
47. Timms, M., DeVelle, S., & Lay, D. (2016). Towards a model of how learners process feedback: A deeper look at learning. Australian Journal of Education, 60(2), 128–145. 10.1177/0004944116652912.
48. van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & White, M. J. (2009). Cognitive processes during reading: Implications for the use of multimedia to foster reading comprehension. In A. G. Bus & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and literacy development: Improving achievement for young learners (pp. 57–73). New York: Routledge.
49. Van der Kleij, F. M., Eggen, T. J. H. M., Timmers, C. F., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2012). Effects of feedback in a computer-based assessment for learning. Computers & Education, 58(1), 263–272. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.020.
50. Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C. W., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475–511. 10.3102/0034654314564881.
51. Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., & Groen, M. G. M. (1993). Thinking aloud: Does it affect regulatory processes in learning? Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 18(6), 322–330.
52. Vidal-Abarca, E., Gilabert, R., & Abad, N. (2002a). A proposal for good expository text: Toward an expository text technology. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 25(4), 499–514. 10.1174/021037002762064064.
53. Vidal-Abarca, E., Reyes, H., Gilabert, R., Calpe, J., Soria, E., & Graesser, A. C. (2002b). ETAT: Expository text analysis tool. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(1), 93–107. 10.3758/BF03195428.
54. Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 817–826. 10.1037/a0020062.
55. Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Salmerón, L., Cerdán, R., Gilabert, R., Gil, L., Mañá, A., Llorens, A. C., & Ferris, R. (2011). Recording online processes in task-oriented reading with Read&Answer. Behavior Research Methods, 43(1), 179–192. 10.3758/s13428-010-0032-1.
56. Wolfe, M. B., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467–502. 10.1207/s1532690xci2304_2.