Comprehension evaluation and regulation in learning from science texts

Abstract

Metacognitive variables influence students' learning from science texts. This article deals with the comprehension monitoring abilities of secondary school science students, one of the areas of metacognition which has drawn considerable attention from researchers. The aims of the study are, in particular: (a) to know the extent to which comprehension is monitored by secondary science students as revealed by inconsistency detection in manipulated science texts, and (b) to identify the strategies used to regulate comprehension by the students who detect the inconsistencies. The results indicate that knowing that one understands or fails to understand science texts could be as important a problem as understanding proper. Besides, some incorrect regulatory strategies used by students who notice the inconsistencies in the texts are identified. These could also have an annoying influence in the regulatory behavior of students when studying regular science texts.

Self-Regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments

“…In her study, questionnaires were applied and several tools for data analysis were used, but technology did not exist. Similar examples are the works by Otero and Campanario (1990) on science teaching in secondary school. These and other contributions which are available at http://www.uah.es/otrosweb/jmc analyse SRL of students who are using text books.…”

Who do you refer to? How young students with mild intellectual disability confront anaphoric ambiguities in texts and sentences

“…On the other, it states that the strategies used by the three groups tested are qualitatively different: while children and adults tend to re-read the text, either including any ambiguity or not, the ID students do not check their own model of the situation. Taking this result isolated, it does not necessarily mean that they do not notice the inconsistency, as previous research has already given account of the "laziness" of low-skilled readers, who do not modify the gist of their models even though they detect some inconsistent information (van Oostendorp, Otero, & Campanario, 2002;Otero & Campanario, 1990;Otero & Kintsch, 1992) . However, together with the questionnaire results, we should claim that the strategy of our ID students is poorly efficient, because they rarely review their model of the situation, and they hardly ever manage to detect the inconsistency.…”

Voter, What Message Will Motivate You To Verify Your Vote?

“…Two other questions were used to gauge respondents' evaluation of the clarity of the voter communication [42], and their ability to verify a vote [27].…”