Session Information
09 SES 12 B, Language and Literacy Assessments (Part 2)
Paper Session
Contribution
Research question: What are the dimensions of oral explanations, elicited by descriptive and depictive representations, that characterise the reasoning of children identified as good and poor comprehenders?
The PIRLS international study on reading (Mullis et al.2006) reported an increase in the numbers of teachers using ‘pupil to pupil’ talk in comprehension instruction since 2001. However, the means of assessing comprehension performance in order to inform teaching practice remain limited to oral or written questions and descriptive summaries produced by children. Used as methods for formative assessment, these approaches assume that pupils are able to read their responses off a stable mental model of text content that they construct during reading. However, rather than simply reflecting and reporting understanding, oral explanations have been shown to be the primary vehicle through which understanding is constructed and modified (Roth 2009). In this sense talk acts as a psychological tool through which readers mediate and shape their thinking and reasoning (Wertsch 1994). Hence, explanations are a site that potentially brings assessment and instruction into a closer nexus.
Schnotz & Bannert (2003) propose a theoretical framework for comprehension whereby two types of memory based representation are mapped onto each other in a process of constant comparison and revision.
· Descriptive representations- a literal summary of what the text says
· Depictive representations- a model of how and why the events described occur the way they do.
The framework describes how this internal process of cross checking can be mediated externally through the use of two types of signs: written summaries of text content (descriptive) and pictures and graphs (depictive). Comprehension work by pupils then becomes a double sided process of forming a Gestalt representation of the text as a whole (e.g. a summary) and then finding a pictorial representation through which it can be inspected and tested (e.g. graphs) (Schnotz et al. 2010). Explanations play a central role in this model of learning from text because they are the tool through which one representation can be mapped onto the other through the use of reason and inference.
The above framework privileges psychological research suggesting that successful comprehension of text equates to the construction of coherent depictive mental models and that the ability to construct inferences is critical to this (Graesser et al 1994; Zwaan and Radvansky 1998; Van den Broek et al 2005). Cain and Oakhill (1999) established that lack of inferencing ability is a likely cause of poor comprehension rather than a symptom of it and also found that this is still the case when background knowledge is controlled for (Cain et al 2001). The value of the above model of instruction, therefore, is that it allows practitioners to dynamically assess inferencing processes of poor comprehenders ‘in action’ in a way that questions asked after reading do not.
Pivotal to this approach to instruction is teachers’ understanding of how comprehension ability is expressed through the dimensions of oral explanation.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Cain, K. & Oakhill, J., 1999. Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing, 11, 489-503. Cain, K., Oakill, J., Barnes, M. & Bryant, P.,2001. Comprehension skill, inference making ability and the relation to knowledge. Memory and Cognition, 29(6), 850-859. Graesser, A., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T., 1994. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371-395. Miles, M. and Huberman, M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage. Mullis, I., Martin, M., Kennedy, A & Foy P. 2007. PIRLS 2006 International Report: IEA’s Progress in International Reading Literacy Study in Primary Schools in 40 Countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Centre, Boston College. Roth, W. 2009. Realising Vygotsky’s program concerning language and thought. Language and Education, 23(4), 295-311. Schnotz, W., Baadte, C., Muller, A. & Rasch, R. 2010. Creative thinking and problem solving with depictive and descriptive representations. In. L. Verschaffel, E. De Corte , T. De Jong & J. Elen (eds). Use of representations in reasoning and problem solving. London: Routledge, 11-35. Schnotz, W. & Bannert, M. 2003. Construction and inference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156. Van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. & Kendeou, P., 2005. Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes. 39 (2&3), 299-316. Wertsch, J. 1994. Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. White, R. & Gunstone, R. 1992. Probing understanding. London: Taylor and Francis. Zwaan, R. & Radvansky, G., 1998. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162-185.
Search the ECER Programme
- 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.