Measuring Integrative Inferential Reasoning (IIR) using Modern - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

measuring integrative inferential reasoning iir using
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Measuring Integrative Inferential Reasoning (IIR) using Modern - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Measuring Integrative Inferential Reasoning (IIR) using Modern Objective Measurement By Alexander Mario Blum UC Berkeley & San Francisco State University Join Doctoral Program James M. Mason University of California, Berkeley JinHo Kim


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Measuring Integrative Inferential Reasoning (IIR) using Modern Objective Measurement

By Alexander Mario Blum UC Berkeley & San Francisco State University Join Doctoral Program James M. Mason University of California, Berkeley JinHo Kim University of California, Berkeley Professor P. David Pearson University of California, Berkeley 2019 Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association

slide-2
SLIDE 2
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Pearson & Johnson (1978)

Text-Explicit QAR Text-Implicit QAR Script-Implicit QAR

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Warren, Nicolas, & Trabasso (1979)

Motivational Inference Evaluative Inference

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Chikalanga (1992)

Motivational Inference Text-Implicit Script-Implicit

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Causal- Antecedent Superordinate Goal State Causal- Consequence Thematic Character Emotional Reaction Knowledge Based Inferences (SUBSET) Graesser, Warren, Singer, & Trabasso (1994)

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Construction-Integration Model Kintsch (1988)

Situation Model

slide-8
SLIDE 8

E x p l i c i t I n t e g r a t i

  • n

Theoretical Position Degree of increasing and decreasing explicit integration

slide-9
SLIDE 9

E x p l i c i t I n t e g r a t i

  • n

Theoretical Position

  • Degree of increasing and decreasing

integration

  • Pearson & Johnson’s (1978) QAR

categories make up this continuum Text-Implicit QAR Script-Implicit QAR

slide-10
SLIDE 10

E x p l i c i t I n t e g r a t i

  • n

Theoretical Position

  • Degree of increasing

and decreasing integration

  • Pearson & Johnson’s

(1978) QAR categories make up this continuum

  • A new category is being

posited: The Combination Category Text-Implicit QAR Script-Implicit QAR Script-Implicit & Text-Implicit QAR

slide-11
SLIDE 11

E x p l i c i t I n t e g r a t i

  • n

Text-Implicit QAR Script-Implicit QAR Script-Implicit & Text-Implicit QAR Graesser et al., (1994) Graesser et al., (1994) Graesser et al., (1994)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Items Design

Motivational Inference Probes Evaluative Inference Probes Meta-Reasoning Probe (What made you think of that answer) Degree of Explicit Integration Degree of Explicit Integration Degree of Explicit Integration

Outcome Space

slide-13
SLIDE 13

This gives rise to the following questions in literacy research

– (a) can these theories be united to form a single construct? – (b) how many levels are there to this construct? – (c) is there a hierarchical relationship between these levels as they relate to narrative comprehension? – (d) does this construct relate to development?

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Objective

  • The construction and validation of an instrument,

through the use of appropriate measurement methodologies, that is conducive to answering these questions.

slide-15
SLIDE 15
slide-16
SLIDE 16
slide-17
SLIDE 17
slide-18
SLIDE 18
slide-19
SLIDE 19

Demographics

  • 72 Students
  • Grades 3-6
  • Ages 8-12 years old
  • General Education
  • Public School in the Bay Area, CA
slide-20
SLIDE 20

So What Did We Find?

slide-21
SLIDE 21
slide-22
SLIDE 22

E x p l i c i t I n t e g r a t i

  • n

Text-Implicit QAR Script-Implicit QAR Script-Implicit & Text-Implicit QAR

slide-23
SLIDE 23
slide-24
SLIDE 24

Latent Regression

E x p l i c i t I n t e g r a t i

  • n
slide-25
SLIDE 25

Multi-Dimensional Analysis

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Multi-Dimensional Analysis

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Multi-Dimensional Analysis

.767 .760 .834

slide-28
SLIDE 28

E x p l i c i t I n t e g r a t i

  • n

Text-Implicit QAR Script-Implicit QAR Script-Implicit & Text-Implicit QAR Graesser et al., (1994) Graesser et al., (1994) Graesser et al., (1994)

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Thank You!

  • Contact Information

– Alexander Mario Blum

  • Alexander.M.Blum@Berkeley.edu

– James M. Mason

  • Jmason888@Berkeley.edu

– JinHo Kim

  • PotatoPaul@Berkeley.edu

– P. David Pearson

  • Ppearson@berkeley.edu