The effect of practice and expectancy of inferential questions on poor comprehenders' inferential processing and monitoring
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21444836 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Menahem Yeari (0000-0003-2242-6160, School of Education Bar Ilan University Ramat‐Gan Israel, corresponding author), Adi Avramovich (School of Education Bar Ilan University Ramat‐Gan Israel) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 22-41 |
| Publication date | 2023-02-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Research in Reading (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0141-0423 • E-ISSN: 1467-9817 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9817.12412 |
| OpenAlex | W4308001009 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 34 |
Background Previous studies have shown that undergraduates improve their answering and monitoring accuracy when they exclusively practice and expect inferential questions after reading. This study examined whether children with poor comprehension, who struggle particularly with inferential questions, would benefit from similar practice with and without feedback. Methods To address this question, 44 poor comprehenders and 44 control participants from 6th–9th grades practiced answering literal or inferential questions after reading each of three texts. They were also asked to predict their success in these questions, whereas some received feedback on their prediction (monitoring) accuracy. Then, participants read an additional three texts, but answered both practiced and unpracticed types of questions after reading all texts. They also predicted their success after reading each text. Results Both poor and good comprehenders answered literal questions more accurately when they had practiced. However, only good comprehenders improved their answering of inferential questions when they had practiced. No differences were found between the groups in monitoring accuracy. Feedback had a positive effect on answering accuracy, irrespective of practice. Conclusions Poor comprehenders differentiate to some extent between literal and inferential questions and are flexible enough to execute a different text processing plan for each type of questions. However, they presumably lack the knowledge and/or resources to execute inferential processing efficiently during reading. Moreover, all children seem to have difficulty with comprehension monitoring. Practicing and/or expecting one type of questions, with or without feedback, is insufficient for improving this ability
Cognitive psychology · Comprehension · Expectancy theory · Inference · Linguistics · Literal (mathematical logic) · Mathematics education · Natural language processing · Question answering · Reading (process) · Reading comprehension · Task (project management) · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Education and Critical Thinking Development · Educational Strategies and Epistemologies · Psychology · Reading and Literacy Development · Social Psychology
Visible Learning for Teachers
The Power of Feedback Revisited
Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children
Relevance and Goal-Focusing in Text Processing
Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge
The Observation/Inference Chart
The Scope of Memory-Based Processing
How restudy decisions affect overall comprehension for seventh‐grade students
The Power of Feedback
Assessing children's inference generation
Test expectancy affects metacomprehension accuracy
| Highly cited | No |
|---|