Self-reported accumulation negatively predicts intertextual comprehension while cross-text elaboration positively predicts it, after controlling for prior knowledge¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In a hierarchical regression on the 71-student subsample, adding the two strategy scales to prior knowledge produced a statistically significant 11% increment in explained variance in intertextual comprehension. → Ivar Bråten & Helge I. Strømsø 2011 q2 i? Accumulation was a significant negative predictor (β=−.26, p=.024) and cross-text elaboration a positive predictor that did not quite reach conventional significance (β=.22, p=.058). → Ivar Bråten & Helge I. Strømsø 2011 (2)

Evidence¶

Ivar Bråten & Helge I. Strømsø 2011¶

Ivar Bråten & Helge I. Strømsø. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition Learning 6:111–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9075-7

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Hierarchical multiple regression with intertextual comprehension (InterVT) as the dependent variable in the subsample of 71 students; prior knowledge entered at Step 1 (R²=.06), the two strategy scales at Step 2, yielding a "statistically significant 11% increment" in explained variance.

"The addition of scores on the two strategy measures in Step 2 of the equation resulted in a statistically significant 11% increment in the explained variance, Fchange(2, 64)=4.30, p=.018, R²=.17."

Ivar Bråten & Helge I. Strømsø 2011 (2)¶

Ivar Bråten & Helge I. Strømsø. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition Learning 6:111–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9075-7

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Step 2 regression coefficients for the two MTSI scales predicting intertextual comprehension. The authors note the unique predictability of cross-text elaboration "did not quite reach a conventional level of statistical significance with this sample size."

"self-reported use of accumulation negatively predicted intertextual comprehension, β=−.26, p=.024, whereas self-reported use of cross-text elaboration was a positive predictor, β=.22, p=.058"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Self-reported multiple-text strategies did not predict intratextual comprehension, where prior knowledge was the unique predictor
• External validity of the special-issue strategy measures was mixed: low-to-moderate comprehension correlations for Bräten and Strømsø and Magliano et al., indeterminate for Schellings and Winne and Muis
• Accumulation and cross-text elaboration are uncorrelated and show opposite-sign correlations with intertextual comprehension — related
• Reading comprehension measured with open questions uniquely predicts integration while cloze-measured comprehension does not — related
• A task-specific multiple-text strategy inventory yields two correlated strategy dimensions: cross-text elaboration and accumulation of information — related
• Metacognition and comprehension strategy use are weakly to moderately associated with intertextual integration among K-12 students — related