Extend multiple-text strategy assessment with sourcing and contextualization items and validate against online traces¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 1 study (1 associational), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

The authors recommend future work add items on strategic attention to source information and compare inventory scores with online processing data. They state it is "pertinent to add new items to the MTSI that focus on the strategic attention to and use of source information while reading multiple texts", and suggest comparing scores to software-recorded studying traces, eye movement data, think-alouds, or item-level interviews. They also recommend testing whether single-text strategies predict intratextual comprehension better while multiple-text strategies predict intertextual comprehension better.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• An expanded inventory with sourcing items; validation studies comparing self-reports with online measures of strategic processing

Constraints¶

• Self-reports may suffer from biased processing or reconstructive memory; software traces and eye movement data require particular technical equipment and produce huge amounts of data

Target Learners¶

• higher education undergraduates

Target Learning Goals¶

• multiple-text comprehension strategies
• source evaluation in multiple-text reading

Claims¶

• Self-reported accumulation negatively predicts intertextual comprehension while cross-text elaboration positively predicts it, after controlling for prior knowledge [+W]

Related Strategies¶

• Mapping Online Reading Behavior
• CRAAP Test

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• 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