The effects of self-questioning on thinking processes
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the comparative effects of different sources of questions (self-generated questions versus externally generated questions) on thinking processes. The subjects were presented with historical information, i.e., the Pearl Harbor attack, which is open to interpretations and explanations. Subjects' thinking was evaluated by the quality of processes exhibited in formulating interpretations and explanations. The analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were performed to examine the major hypotheses: the effects of question types. We found little relationship between the question conditions and thinking processes. The analyses of the data in this study did not support the contention that subjects in different question groups would formulate different levels of responses as measured in this study. Four possible interpretations for the non-significant results were discussed. A series of supplementary analyses were also performed to examine the relationship between subjects' responses and (1) the quality of answers to the inserted questions, (2) the amount of time spent on reading, questioning, and formulating answers, (3) the frequencies of "look-backs", (4) the scores on the Deep Processing scale, or (5) the amount of prior knowledge about the Pearl Harbor attack. Each of these were examined separately. Overall, we found little relationship between the subjects' responses and the rest of variables. One of the contributions of this study may be a procedure for measuring some aspects of thinking processes. This procedure includes a computer-based program which makes data collection easy and efficient. The scoring rationale for the Pearl Harbor exercise generated scores which were significantly correlated with an independent rater's assessment of subjects' responses. These evidences of validity coupled with the high level of subjects' acceptability, makes this an attractive procedure for measuring cognitive processes. As we continue to work in this area, we will further refine the scoring rationale and seek alternative experimental designs within which to collect data. Suggestions for future studies were discussed.
Degree
Ph.D.
Advisors
McDaniel, Purdue University.
Subject Area
Educational psychology
Off-Campus Purdue Users:
To access this dissertation, please log in to our
proxy server.