Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2014-03
Reading literacy in Compulsory Secondary Education: an exploration of the difficulties in the use of information to answer questions / La competencia lectora en la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria: descripción y dificultades del uso de información para responder preguntas
This paper is a review of studies about processes and secondary school students’ difficulties with these processes when they use information to answer questions. The PISA program uses this kind of task-oriented reading situation to evaluate reading literacy, which is also a common reading situation in educational settings. Four key strategies are identified to successfully perform this kind of task: decide how to read the information, comprehend the task, decide when to search for information in order to solve the task, and self-regulate that search process. Moreover, this paper provides accurate information about the students’ difficulties in becoming skilled readers when they use information to answer questions. This information might help teachers and educational counselors in the design of interventions to improve reading literacy in schools.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CataldoM. G.OakhillJ. (2000). Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into the effects of text representation and spatial memory on the ability to locate information in text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 791–799.
2.
CerdánR.GilabertR.Vidal-AbarcaE. (2010) Estrategias de selección de información en tareas de contestación a preguntas. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 33, 449–460.
3.
CerdánR.GilabertR.Vidal-AbarcaE. (2011) Selecting information to answer questions: Strategic individual differences when searching texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 201–205.
4.
CerdánR.Vidal-AbarcaE. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 209–222. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.209
5.
CerdánR.Vidal-AbarcaE.MartínezT.GilabertR.GilL., (2009). Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 19, 13–27
6.
HannonB.DanemanM. (2004) Shallow Semantic Processing of Text: An individual-Differences Account. Discourse Processes, 37, 187–204.
7.
Instituto de Evaluación (2010). PISA 2009. Programa para la evaluación internacional de los alumnos OCDE.Informe español.Ministerio de Educación.
8.
LinL. M.ZabruckyK. M. (1998). Calibration of comprehension: Research and implications for education and instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 345–391.
9.
LlorensA. C.CerdánR. (2012). Evaluación de la comprensión de las preguntas en lectura orientada-a-tareas. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 17, 233–251.
10.
MakiR.H. (1998) Test Predictions over Text Material. In HackerD. J.GraesserA. C.DunloskyJ. (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice (pp. 117–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11.
MañáA. (2011). Individual differences in monitoring accuracy and self-regulation in task-oriented reading(Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Universidad de Valencia, Spain.
12.
MañaA.Vidal-AbarcaE.DomínguezC.GilL.CerdánR. (2009). Papel de los procesos metacognitivos en una tarea de pregunta-respuesta con textos escritos. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 32, 553–565.
13.
McCruddenM. T.SchrawG. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113–139.
14.
McNamaraD. S.MaglianoJ. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of learning and motivation, 51, 297–384.
15.
MetcalfeJ.FinnB. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 174–179.
16.
OzuruY.BestR.BellC.WitherspoonA.McNamaraD. (2007). Influence of question format and text availability on the assessment of expository text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 25, 399–438.
17.
PayneS. J.ReaderW. R. (2006). Constructing structure maps of multiple on-line texts. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64, 461–474.
18.
RawsonK. A.DunloskyJ. (2007). Improving students’ self-evaluation of learning for key concepts in textbook materials. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 559–579.
19.
RouetJ-F. (2006). Question answering and document search. In RouetJ-F. (Ed.), The skills of document use. From text comprehension to web-based learning (pp. 93–121). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
20.
SánchezE.GarcíaJ. R.RosalesJ. (2010). La lectura en el aula.: Qué se hace, qué se debe hacer y qué se puede hacer. Barcelona: Grao.
21.
ThiedeK. W.AndersonM. C. M.TherriaultD. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning from texts. Journal of Educacional Psychology, 95, 66–73.
22.
Vidal-AbarcaE.MañáA.GilL. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 817–826
23.
Vidal-AbarcaE.SalmerónL.MañáA. (2011). Individual differences in task-oriented reading. In McCruddenM. T.MaglianoJ. P.SchrawG. (Eds.), Relevance instructions and goal-focusing in text learning (pp. 267–294)Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
