09 SES 07 C, Scrutinizing Tests and Assessments in Reading
General description on research questions, objectives and theoretical framework
Pupils of today encounter enormous amounts of information, which contain different perspectives on one topic or a situation, or multiple texts (Britt & Rouet, 2012). In and out of school, pupils encounter conflicting information on the Internet in the form of social media, websites, magazines, articles and blogs, and through reading textbooks. Problem solving tasks involving such information require that the pupils frame and link information and transform this into knowledge and skills. This is also understood as metacognitive processes based on formative assessment. In this study, we investigate 7th graders’ (N=30), information processing. Moreover, we investigate to what extent individual differences influence how pupils seek internal feedback and process information from multiple, partly contradictory texts. In the current project we hold a future perspective on education by adopting a comprehensive definition of the concept “Deeper learning” as we find it explained by Wineburg (1991). This is competence that pupils’ need in order to work with information from different, partly contradictory sources. This is to identify the source of each document, compare and contrast across sources, corroborate the veracity and the accuracy of sources, evaluating and contextualize (Rouet, 2006), in order to promote deeper learning.
In the educational system, the promoting of deeper learning and development of 21st century skills is considerable (Goldman & Pellegrino, 2015). Business leaders, educational organizations, and researchers are calling for the development of broad, transferable skills and knowledge, often described as deeper learning (Goldman & Pellegrino, 2015). The availability and accessibility of abundant information sources undoubtedly afford unique learning opportunities, but they also represent challenges for most readers regardless of age (Rouet, 2006). Moreover, studies show that there are some differences in how skilled and less skilled readers work with multiple texts (Goldman et al., 2012). A think aloud study by Goldman and colleagues (2012) showed that skilled readers produced more self-explanations and evaluated the quality of the texts more extensively than the less-skilled readers. Further, prior studies show how pupils need to detect important information while identifying and evaluating contradictory or consistent information (Britt & Rouet, 2012).
Although there is a growing body of research of learning and instruction, there is a need for transferring this knowledge from the research in order to affect the design and of everyday schooling in the form of curriculum, instruction and assessment.
Thus, we wanted to explore individual differences in how primary school pupils are processing multiple, partly contradictory texts, to what extent their reading strategy skills are related to detecting contradictory information in the texts,and to what internal feedback they seek. Knowledge on how pupils seek and use feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) in order to resolve problems and for self-regulation (Andrade, 2010; Zimmerman, 2002), is by us understood as a hinge in “deeper learning”. Zimmerman (2002) argues that self-regulation is not a mental ability or an academic performance skill; rather it is the self-directive process by which learners transform their mental abilities into academic skills. In this paper we address the following research questions.
- 1. How do pupils process multiple, partly contradictory texts to facilitate deeper learning?
- 2. To what extent do individual differences influence how pupils seek internal feedback and process information from multiple, partly contradictory texts?
Andrade, H. (2010). Pupils as the definitive source of formative assessment. I: Handbook of formative assessment. H: Andrade & G. Cizek (Eds), p.90-105. New York: Routhledge. Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents. In: M. J. Lawson & J. R. Kirby (Eds.) The Quality of Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980/1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodwinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and Learning From Internet Sources: Processing Patterns of Better Comprehending and Poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356-381. Goldman, S. R. & Pellegrino, J.W. (2015). Research on Learning and Instruction. Implications for Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2(1), 33-41. Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. Høien, T., & Tønnesen, G. (1997). Ordkjedetesten [Word Chain Test]. Stavanger: Dysleksiforeningen. Rogne, W.M. & Strømsø, H.I. (2013). Lesing av multiple, delvis motstridende tekster i syvende klasse. Acta Didactica. http://adno.no/index.php/adno/article/view/254. Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2002). Norwegian Law Pupils' Use of Multiple Sources While Reading Expository Texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(2), 208-227. Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Salmeron, L., Cerdán, R., Gilabert, R., Gil, L., Mañá, A., Llorens, A., & Ferris, R. (2011). Recording online processes in task-oriented reading with Read&Answer. Behavior Research Methods, 43(1), 179-192. Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73-87. Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between Adolescents' Text Processing and Reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467-502. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods. CA: Sage Publications. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.