25
AE
.526**
.431**
.563**
RPA
- .381*
- .526**
- .043
nElab0
AE
- .010
- .090
.103
Discussion and conclusions
There
formation of the mental representation of the text (Lehman & Schraw, 2002; McCrudden,
Schraw, & Kambe, 2005; van den Broek et al., 2001). In this study, the processing and
effectiveness of self-explanations (SE) and answering open-ended questions (AOQ) with
the available text have been analyzed. Our specific interest is to compare the processing
induced by both techniques, as well as their efficacy for learning.
This study assumed that the technique of AOQ and SE favoured different patterns
of text processing. Thus, SE students would focus on textual information (Rittle-Johnson
&
beyond the text (e.g., prior knowledge). The results confirmed this hypothesis. SE students
used
students showed a more balanced profile between the use of paraphrases (nTotPar) and
elaborations (nTotElab). This indicates that the SE technique focuses students' attention
on memorizing textual information, while the AOQ technique encourages students to use
superficial and deep comprehension strategies.
The
textual (i.e., elaborations) comprehension strategies that characterizes AOQ students may
be due to different types of questions (Cerdán et al., 2009; Ozgungor y Guthrie, 2004).
AOQ students answered questions based on textual information (TB questions) but also,
they answered questions based on hypothetical situations that required an application of
the
students
confirmed
application of prior knowledge and SE technique do not make it easier for the student to
go beyond the text.
On the other hand, contrary to existing literature (Cerdán et al., 2009; Ozgungor
&
(nTotElab)
(LearnPost).
strategies (nTotPar and nPar1) were significantly related to the TB questions