Research And Development Of Multiple Source Comprehension Assessment

• Published in: Reading - from Words to Multiple Texts pp. 180 - 199
• Main Authors: Goldman, Susan R., Lawless, Kimberly, Manning, Flori
• Format: Book Chapter
• Language: English
• Published: United Kingdom Routledge 2013; Taylor & Francis Group
• Edition: 1
• Subjects: Educational: English language: reading & writing skills; Teaching of a specific subject; Multiple Source Comprehension; Single Text Comprehension; Evidence Centered Design Approach; Documents Model Framework; Multiple Text Sources; Explore Cluster Analysis; Deep Reading Comprehension; Student Model; High Quality Lexical Representations; Semantic Information; READI; Civil Rights Events; Disaster Relief Efforts; Direct Action Efforts; Evidence Model; Multi-letter Graphemes; OT Region; Sentence Level Processes; Domain Model; DA Text; Logical Relations; Synthesis Situations; Task Model; Assessment Situation; Van Den Broek
• ISBN: 9780415501958; 9780415501934; 0415501938; 0415501954
• DOI: 10.4324/9780203131268-12

Literacy demands of 21st-century society require that we move beyond simpler views of reading comprehension in our theories, research, and assessment (Goldman, in press; Goldman et al., 2010, 2012; Lawless, Goldman, Gomez, Manning, & Braasch, in press; Lee & Spratley, 2010; Moje, 2008). For example, electronic technologies make information ubiquitous and increase the likelihood that "the public" of all ages finds itself attempting to bring together multiple sources of information in the course of their personal, academic, and professional lives (Britt, Rouet, & Braasch, Chapter 11, this volume; Coiro, 2009; Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Goldman, 2004; Goldman et al., 2012; Wiley et al., 2009). To "bring together" information from multiple text sources, readers need to go beyond decoding and comprehension processes associated with word-and sentence-level processes, often referred to as simple views of reading (cf. Andrews & Reynolds, Chapter 5, this volume; Landi, Chapter 2, this volume; Oakhill, Cain, McCarthy, & Nightingale, Chapter 7, this volume; Van Dyke & Shankweiler, Chapter 8, this volume). They have to move to interpretive levels and decide what the text means in the context of their purpose or goal. They need to decide what information is relevant; if it fits together coherently; if there are gaps or inconsistencies; and if it contradicts previously acquired knowledge. If such issues arise, readers need to decide what to do about them. The decisions and what to do about them often depend on information about the text, such as who wrote it, when, and for what purpose. (See, for discussion, Bråten, Strømsø, & Britt, 2009; Britt et al., this volume; Britt & Rouet, 2011, 2012; Goldman et al., 2012; Strømsø, Bråten, & Britt, 2010.) These interconnections between reading and reasoning are evident in the following hypothetical example. A news story hits the networks about an earthquake in China. There has been an intense tremor and major damage to certain areas of the country. Concerned for the welfare of family and friends who live in China, you search the Internet to get additional information, entering China earthquake. Your search returns several sources of information: Newspapers releasing flash updates, twitter feeds from individuals in the immediate vicinity, video of the quake captured on cell phones, and links to stories published after prior earthquakes of like magnitude and occurring in similar geographic areas. Across these "texts" a reader must sort out the relevant details. Where was the epicenter? What is the population in that area? What kind of damage can such a quake do? What is the early damage assessment? Are there human injuries? What happens in the aftermath of such a disaster? This information, of course, also needs to be integrated with one's prior knowledge of major earthquakes, such as those that have occurred in California, Haiti, and Japan. In addition you have to consider the type of source and its author to decide on its reliability and trustworthiness. If the author was someone from the U.S. Geographic Survey, you might be more inclined to accept the claims after a superficial reading of the article than if the author was someone who stood to gain financially from disaster relief efforts. In the latter case, you might actually read the article very closely before deciding on the validity of the information.