1. Search and Comprehension Processes in Learning from Text Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Gil, L., Gilabert, R., & Martínez, T. University of Valencia

2. Comprehension & Learning from Text  Search tasks in complex documents ( Rouet & Tricot, 1998)  Evaluation (E): search goal & strategy  Selection (S): selection of information units  Processing (P): extraction of relevant information Iterations of E-S-P cycles  Pattern of search (Rouet, Vidal-Abarca, Bert-Erlboul & Millogo, 2001)  High level questions: Review & Integrate  Low level questions: Locate & Memorize  Adjunct Questions: Aids for Comprehension & Learning

3. Previous experiment to study Search & Comprehension processes (Vidal-Abarca, et al., 2002) 22 University students 2 groups: high vs. low level questions Task: ( on a computer screen) Reading long science text (1800 words) + Searching info to Answer (HL vs. LL) questions Reading the question Re-reading the text (if neened) Writing the answer Cycles

4. Main results Answering questions at a good level implied:  Reading questions fewer times.  Selecting lower number of text segments (relevant + non-relevant for the questions)  Reading more relevant segments.  Fewer answering cycles. High level questions: Low level questions:  Reading questions more times and selecting more text segments (relevant + non-relevant)  Reading questions fewer times and selecting fewer text segments (relevant + non-relevant)

5. Current experiment New Situation: searching info to answer (HL vs LL) Qs, but NO prior reading text GOAL: replicate prior results?  Search & comprehension processes in answering questions at good vs. poor level?  Search patterns to answer high vs. low level questions?

6. Procedure 16 University students. 2 groups: high level vs. low level questions Task: on a computer screen (Read & Answer) Searching info to Answer (HL vs. LL) questions Reading the question Reading the text Writing the answer Cycles

7. Read&Answer 1. Reading the question 2. Searching info to answer Q

8. Design ANOVAs 2x2: Type of question x Comprehension (Answering level)  High L Q: Integrating distant information + many inferences  Low L Q: Locating especific information + few or no inferences.  Good comprehension (highest third score)  Poor comprension (lowest third score)

9. On line measures Evaluation Phase: Number of times reading the questions. Time spent reading the questions. Word reading time per visit. Processing Phase: % of time reading relevant segments within each question. Control Processes: Number of QTW cycles: Q (reading the question), T (reading the text), W (writing an answer), Selection Phase: Number of total paragraphs visited. Number of relevant paragraphs. % of relevant paragraphs.

10. Evaluation phase: Times reading questions Selection phase: % of relevant segments Processing phase: % of time reading relevant segments Executive control processes: number of QTW cycles

11. Summary Answering at a Good vs. Poor level:  Reading questions fewer times.  Selecting a higher percentage of relevant segments ( especially in low level questions)  Fewer answering cycles. High vs.low level questions:  High level: Reading questions more times, selecting more segments (relevant + non-relevant) and using more QTW cycles.  Low level: Reading questions fewer times, selecting fewer text segments and using fewer QTW cycles.

12. Conclusions  Good comprehenders: effective search pattern  Poor comprehenders: loss in search task  Pattern for High level questions: Review&Integrate  Pattern for Low level questions: Locate&Memorize