Search

This article examines the effectiveness of a computer-based instructional program (e-PELS) aimed at direct instruction in a collection of reading comprehension strategies. In e-PELS, students learn to highlight and outline expository passages based on various types of text structures (such as comparison or cause-and-effect) as well as to paraphrase, self-question, and summarize. The study involved 1041 fourth-grade elementary students from 21 schools distributed in three regions in central Chile. Participant teachers integrated this program into the Spanish language curriculum, instructing their students during thirty sessions of 90 min each during one school semester. Pretest-to-posttest gains in reading comprehension scores were significantly greater for students instructed with this program than for students who received traditional instruction (d = .5), with particularly strong effects for lower-achieving students (d = .7). The findings support the efficacy of direct instruction in specific learning strategies in a computer-based environment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The transition from paper-based tests to corresponding computer-administered tests allows for the incorporation of improved interfaces that support response making. The main research question is whether innovative interfaces affect test response time and/or response accuracy. This study compared performance on banked cloze tests using a conventional interface (based on paper-based formats for responding by writing a number in a box) versus cloze tests with improved interfaces (based on computer-based affordances such as dragging and dropping responses to fill in a blank). In a banked cloze test, the left side of the page shows a text with words deleted and replaced with blanks that are numbered, and the right side shows the word list with a space to write in the corresponding number. In Experiment 1, 56 fourth graders in the conventional group responded more slowly but just as accurately, and spent more time looking at the word list on the right of the screen but spent equivalent time looking at the text as compared to a group that took the test with an improved interface. In Experiment 2, the same pattern of results was replicated with 148 sixth graders and for each of three versions of improved interfaces as compared to the conventional interface. Results support the idea that the improved interface affected the response execution phase but not the response development phase of performance on the cloze test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study is to examine the effects of using one or two computer-supported learning strategies on learning processes (as measured by integrative eye movements through eye-tracking methodology) and learning outcome (as measured by memory and comprehension tests). Sixth-grade students selected from four schools located in Santiago, Chile read a two-paragraph text on a computer screen and were asked either to read it (read-only group), highlight text as they read (highlighting group), type notes from the text into a textbox as they read (notetaking group), fill in an interactive graphic organizer (graphic organizer group), highlight first and then take notes from the text (highlighting + notetaking group) or highlight first and then fill in an interactive graphic organizer (highlighting + graphic organizer group). The graphic organizer group, highlighting + graphic organizer group, and highlighting + notetaking group each made significantly more integrative eye movements between the two paragraphs during learning (indicating better learning processes) and produced higher comprehension test scores (indicating better learning outcomes) as compared to the read-only group, whereas the highlighting group and notetaking group did not. Results are consistent with the idea that filling in graphic organizers is a generative learning strategy, whereas highlighting and typing notes into a textbox are not generative learning strategies. Similarly using two learning strategies together (notetaking and highlighting) leads to generative learning even though using either one of those strategies alone does not, so in this case two learning strategies are better than one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the effectiveness of a software that supports formative assessment in real-time of learners' vocabulary knowledge through an interactive highlighting method. Students in a classroom are given a passage on their computer screen and asked to highlight the words they do not understand. This information is summarized on the instructors screen by highlighting in red the words most highlighted, in orange the second most highlighted, and in yellow the third most highlighted, with a superscript showing the number of students who selected each word. The instructor projects this summary on a screen for the whole class and use it to guide activities on how to comprehend the passage. In Experiment 1, college students who learned with interactive highlighting in a single-session study scored higher on a vocabulary test (d = 1.14) but not on a comprehension test as compared to a control group that studied the same passage without interactive highlighting. In Experiment 2, high school students who learned with interactive highlighting across a 10-week program scored higher on a standardized reading comprehension test as compared to a control group that studied without interactive highlighting (d = 1.60 in school 1, d = 1.17 in school 2). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]