Magliano Joseph P, Flynn Lauren, Feller Daniel P, McCarthy Kathryn S, McNamara Danielle S, Allen Laura
Department of Learning Sciences, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, United States.
Department of Educational Psychology, The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Front Psychol. 2022 Aug 10;13:936162. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.936162. eCollection 2022.
The goal of this study was to assess the relationships between computational approaches to analyzing constructed responses made during reading and individual differences in the foundational skills of reading in college readers. We also explored if these relationships were consistent across texts and samples collected at different institutions and texts. The study made use of archival data that involved college participants who produced typed constructed responses under thinking aloud instructions reading history and science texts. They also took assessments of vocabulary knowledge and proficiency in comprehension. The protocols were analyzed to assess two different ways to determine their cohesion. One approach involved assessing how readers established connections with themselves (i.e., to other constructed responses they produced). The other approach involved assessing connections between the constructed responses and the texts that were read. Additionally, the comparisons were made by assessing both lexical (i.e., word matching) and semantic (i.e., high dimensional semantic spaces) comparisons. The result showed that both approaches for analyzing cohesion and making the comparisons were correlated with vocabulary knowledge and comprehension proficiency. The implications of the results for theory and practice are discussed.
本研究的目的是评估分析阅读过程中所做的建构性回答的计算方法与大学读者阅读基础技能的个体差异之间的关系。我们还探讨了这些关系在不同机构收集的文本和样本以及不同文本中是否一致。该研究利用了档案数据，这些数据涉及大学参与者，他们在出声思考的指令下阅读历史和科学文本时生成了打字的建构性回答。他们还进行了词汇知识和阅读理解能力的评估。对这些协议进行了分析，以评估确定其衔接性的两种不同方法。一种方法涉及评估读者如何与自己建立联系（即与他们生成的其他建构性回答）。另一种方法涉及评估建构性回答与所读文本之间的联系。此外，通过评估词汇（即单词匹配）和语义（即高维语义空间）比较进行了对比。结果表明，分析衔接性和进行比较的两种方法都与词汇知识和阅读理解能力相关。讨论了结果对理论和实践的启示。
