Computers are used widely for many purposes in educational settings. In this article the computer is used as a tool in an experimental setting. This study investigates the effects of self-generated questions and external questions on thinking processes. Thirty-three subjects received the program under three conditions of questioning: 1) external higher order questions, 2) external lower order questions, and 3) self-generated questions. The results revealed that question conditions were unrelated to the quality of explanations of a complex situation constructed by subjects. Note-taking was related to the quality of the explanations. The nonsignificant findings for question conditions were interpreted as indicating that questions and prompts to generate questions may elicit overt compliance without necessarily motivating the subjects to actually interrogate the material.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DillonJ. T., The Effects of Questions in Education and Other Enterprises, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 14, pp. 127–152, 1982.
2.
SternbergR. J., Questioning and Intelligence, Questioning Exchange: A Multidisciplinary Review, 1, pp. 11–14, 1987.
3.
WongB., Self-Question Instructional Research: A Review, Review of Educational Research, 55, pp. 227–268, 1985.
4.
AndreM. E.AndersonT. H., The Development and Evaluation of a Self- Questioning Technique, Reading Research Quarterly, 14, pp. 605–623, 1978–1979.
5.
RothkopfE. Z., Learning from Written Material: An Exploration of the Control of Inspection Behavior by Test-Like Events, American Educational Research Journal, 3, pp. 241–250, 1966.
6.
FraseL. T.SchwartzB. J., Effect of Question Production and Answering on Prose Recalls, Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, pp. 628–635, 1975.
7.
BlahaB. A., The Effect of Answering Self-Generated Questions on Reading (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University), Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, pp. 4976A–4977A, 1979.
8.
CohenR., Self-Generated Questions as an Aid to Reading Comprehension, The Reading Teacher, 36, pp. 770–775, 1983.
9.
DaveyB.McBrideS., Effects of Question-Generation Training on Reading Comprehension, Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, pp. 256–262, 1986.
10.
MacDonaldJ. D., Self-Generated Questions and Reading Recall: Does Training Help?, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, pp. 290–304, 1986.
11.
OwensA. M., The Effects of Question Generation, Question Answering and Reading on Prose Learning (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon), Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, pp. 5709A–5710A, 1976.
12.
PedersonJ. E. P., An Investigation into the Differences between Student-Constructed versus Experimenter-Constructed Post-Questions on the Comprehension of Expository Prose (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota), Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, pp. 3574A, 1976.
13.
MartinM. A., Students' Applications of Self-Questioning Study Techniques: An Investigation of Their Efficacy, Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 6, pp. 69–83, 1985.
14.
ProsserG. V., The Role of Active Questions in Learning and Retention of Prose Material, Instructional Science, 2, pp. 451–476, 1974.
15.
ProsserG. V., The Role of Relevant Active Questions in Learning Based upon Successive Presentations, Instructional Science, 7, pp. 359–383, 1978.
16.
SmithA. E., The Effectiveness of Training Students to Generate Their Own Question Prior to Reading (Doctoral Dissertation, Syracuse University), Dissertation Abstracts International, 33, pp. 5620A, 1972.
17.
SingerH.DonlanD., Active Comprehension: Problem-Solving with Question Generation for Complex Short Stories, Reading Research Quarterly, 17, pp. 166–183, 1982.
18.
WeinerC. J., The Effect of Training in Questioning and Student Question Generation on Reading Achievement (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon), Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, pp. 5900A. 1977.
19.
BalajthyE., Using Student-Constructed Questions to Encourage Active Reading, Journal of Reading, 27, pp. 408–411, 1984.
20.
AndreT., Questions and Learning from Reading, Questioning Exchange, 1, pp. 47–86, 1987.
21.
ReinkingD.SchrenerR., The Effects Computer-Mediated Text on Measures of Reading Comprehension and Reading Behavior, Reading Research Quarterly, 10:5, pp. 536–551, 1985.
22.
ReynoldsR. E.StandifordS. N.AndersonR. C., Distribution of Reading Time when Questions Are Asked about a Restricted Category of Text Information, Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, pp. 183–190, 1979.
23.
SchlossC. N.SchlossP. J.CartwrightG. P., Placement of Questions and Highlights as a Variable Influencing the Effectiveness of Computer Assisted Instruction, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12:4, pp. 97–100, 1985.
24.
SchlossP. J.SindelarP. T.CartwrightG. P.SchlossC., Efficacy of Higher Cognitive and Factual Questions in Computer-Assisted Instruction Modules, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 13:3, pp. 75–79, 1986.
25.
MerrillJ., Levels of Questioning and Forms of Feedback: Instructional Factors in Courseware Design, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14, pp. 18–22, 1987.
26.
MichellL.PeelE. A., A Cognitive Dimension in the Analysis of Classroom Discourse, Educational Review, 29:4, pp. 255–266, 1977.
27.
EnnisR. H., A Logical Basis for Measuring Critical Thinking Skills, Educational Leadership, 43, pp. 44–48, 1985.
28.
EnnisR. H.WeirE., The Test Manual of the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test, Midwest Publications, Pacific Groves, 1985.
29.
NorrisS. P.PhillipsL. M., Explanations of Reading Comprehensions: Schema Theory and Critical Thinking Theory, Teacher College Record, 89, pp. 280–306, 1987.
30.
SchroderH. M.DriverM. J.StreufertS., Human Information Processing, Individual and Groups Functioning in Complex Social Situation, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1967.
31.
KiewraK. A., Cognitive Aspects of Autonomous Note Taking: Control Processes, Learning Strategies, and Prior Knowledge, Educational Psychologist, 23:1, pp. 39–56, 1988.
32.
HartleyJ.DaviesT. K., Note-Taking: A Critical Review, Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 15:3, pp. 207–224, 1978.
33.
HamiltonR. J., A Framework for the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Adjunct Questions and Objectives, Review of Educational Research, 55, pp. 47–85, 1985.
34.
WinneP. H., Experiments Relating Teachers' Use of Higher Cognitive Questions to Student Achievement, Review of Educational Research, 49, pp. 13–50, 1979.
35.
McDanielE. D.LawrenceC., Levels of Cognitive Complexity: An Approach to the Measurement of Thinking, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990.
