What to Read and How to Read It: Perceptions of Context Determine Information-Seeking Strategies

• In Event: 34.029 - Multiple Text Engagement: Addressing Questions About Methods and Measurement

Abstract

Objectives and Theoretical Frame
Contemporary models of reading posit that skilled reading is the product of an interaction between the reader, the text and the prompt or task that motivates readers’ engagement in reading (McCrudden & Schraw, 2007; Rouet & Britt, 2011). However, whether and how readers internalize the demands of specific reading tasks and how this internal representation drives their decisions regarding what to read and how to read it remains to be elucidated.
Assessing readers’ representation of their task context is a challenge due to the lack of agreed-upon methods. In the present study, we explore the possibility of using reader-generated descriptions of potential reading plans as a source of evidence for their context and task models.
Method
Thirty-nine second-year undergraduate students were included in the study. Participants were asked to write down as many actions as they could think of in order to address information seeking scenarios (e.g., explaining the increase in violent crime in some places) that were set either in a formal (class assignment) or an informal (request from friend) context. They were also asked to provide a short explanation for each proposed action. In addition, participants answered a multiple-choice question asking what they thought the best thing to do was, in the case that they found multiple contradictory answers to the issue. They provided a short written justification for their answer.
After a short intermediate task, participants were asked to recall as many details about each scenario based on a set of recall prompts. Finally, they rated the authority of the addressee and the importance of the scenario.
Results
Content analysis (Kappa=.91) showed that participants listed more actions (M=2.50, SD=0.92) in response to a formal situation, as compared to an informal situation (M=2.05, SD=.91). Participants were more likely to ask another person (e.g., “I would ask a specialist”), or to engage in reflective actions (“I would think about it”) in a formal context. Conversely, they were more likely to directly provide an answer in an informal, than in a formal, context.
In response to the contradiction question, 59% reported they would try to find a unique correct answer in the case of a formal scenario, as compared to 32% in an informal scenario.
Finally, the analysis of recall protocols found no differences as a function of the task context, which does not support a simple depth of encoding effect.
Significance
The results support the view that readers use critical cues from the context to derive strategies for accessing and using information. A more formal context prompted the search for multiple external sources (e.g., Internet search and expert consulting), whereas the informal context prompted a direct answer strategy. In addition, students reported that multiple answers were more acceptable in the case of an informal scenario. Future work will examine whether self-reported context models can actually lead students to engage in different information seeking strategies, with possibly various outcomes in comprehension and learning.

Authors

• Jean-Francois Rouet, CNRS and University of Poitiers

• Colin Lescarret, University of Poitiers

• Amanda Marie Durik, Northern Illinois University

• Anne Britt, Northern Illinois University