BackHome
Refresh: OffView Personal Schedule
Paper Summary

Approaching Reading for Understanding From Multiple Sources in History and Science: Initial Studies

Sat, April 14, 2:15 to 3:45pm, Sheraton Wall Centre, Floor: Third Level, North Junior Ballroom D

Abstract

Objectives/Purposes. The purpose of this presentation is to present initial data on reading–for-understanding inquiry tasks that require developing argument-based essays from multiple sources in history and science. The results of these studies will provide important information on the skills and competencies that students bring to these tasks that, along with the articulation of progressions, are informing the design of interventions.

Methods/Data Sources. Middle school and high school students answered inquiry questions in history (271 students) and science (115 students), such as “What factors led to the Scopes trial occurring when and where it did?” and “To what extent is humankind causing the recent changes in global temperatures?” Students were given 5-9 short texts providing complementary and non-overlapping information. In addition, the text sets were specially designed around causal models of phenomena, and understanding was primarily defined by evidence of student construction of mental models.

Results. Our results from these studies have indicated three main findings. First, even though students are rarely taught how to read across multiple texts, students seem to possess some basic skills that allow them to develop at least minimal mental models. Second, the nature of the inquiry prompt and the texts that are provided to students seem to matter a great deal. For example, opinion-based inquiry questions, which are a popular choice due to the assumption that they invoke student interest or motivation, do not seem to be as effective for learning as questions that more directly prompt understanding of causal factors. In another example, providing multiple texts that contribute different information, and no single source that could serve as an answer to the inquiry question, may promote integration across texts and the development of understanding. Also, prompting students to use evidence from texts in their essays does improve their essays in this respect. A third conclusion relates to the epistemological sophistication of the students. Most students in our sample approach multiple source inquiry tasks with a naïve epistemology that fails to appreciate the roles of argument, evidence, and coherence. Students indicate they believe that good historians and scientists stick only to the observed facts and do not interpret them, and that there is no need to cross-reference or connect information. Relations among epistemology, inquiry prompts and text set design features will be discussed.
Implications and Significance. These initial results suggest that students need support during reading-for-understanding inquiry tasks. They need to understand that they should provide an answer to the inquiry question by integrating evidence from across multiple sources. They need to recognize that the answer will not appear in a single text, and that given information has to be transformed. Finally, they need to develop an appreciation for constructing arguments based on evidence from the texts that can be cited and corroborated. An interesting future question as we attempt to support comprehension skills through extended interventions is whether this experience will change students’ epistemologies, or whether direct instruction in the value of reasoning, argumentation and evidence in disciplinary understanding is necessary.

Authors