# Mejora de la comprensión lectora mediante la formulación de preguntas tipo test

## Texto completo

(9) Tabla 1. Medias y Desviaciones Típicas en comprensión lectora a nivel textual y resultados del análisis de varianza y covarianza para el grupo experimental y control. Grupo Experimental (n = 58). Variables. Grupo Control (n = 60). Pre M DT. Post M DT. Pre-Post M DT. Pre M DT. 1.91 1.84 1.62 1.45. .60 .64 .67 .52. 2.39 2.42 2.26 2.06. .82 .56 .72 .54. .48 .68 .64 .61. 1.93 1.91 1.60 1.46. 1.87 .26 1.65 .54. 2.83 2.85. .53 .47. 1.43 .53 1.45 .37 1.44 .54. 1.98 2.12 2.14. .43 .53 .54. Post Pre-Post M DT M DT. Anova Pretest F (1, 52) d. Experimental – Control (n = 118) Anova Ancova Pretest-Postest Pretest-Postest F (1, 52) F (1, 52) d. ACL-4 C. Literal C. Inferencial C. Reorganizativa C. Crítica. PROLEC-R E. Gramaticales C. Oraciones. .82 .51 .42 .37. .82 .85 .52 .62. 2.15 2.04 1.79 1.64. .64 .71 .63 .82. .22 .72 .13 .37 .19 .68 .18 .71. .231 .325 .439 .286. .24 .56 .63 .57. 3.60* 5.46*** 5.47*** 3.63***. 2.40* 7.43*** 9.52*** 8.73***. .96 .71 1.20 .52. 1.91 .62 1.63 .51. 2.30 2.04. .63 .61. .39 .51. .67 .52. 7.42 8.64. .58 .74. 11.43** 14.51***. 12.56*** 15.64***. .55 .67 .70. 1.45 1.48 1.51. 1.60 1.72 1.79. .28 .36 .58. .15 .24 .28. .65 .34 .57. .308 .145 .243. .46 .53 .56. 4.65** 7.38** 6.25**. 5.06** 7.26** 6.54**. .26 .63 .67 .62. .63 .76. ESCOLA Planificación Supervisión Evaluación. .53 .61 .42. .72 .63 .76. * p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001. 101. .53 .65 .62.

(17) 28 items each (School 28-A and School 28-B). Each item has three response options that are scored with 0, 1, 2. The test has a Cronbach reliability coefficient of 0.95. Intervention programme The reading comprehension programme used consists of narrative-type texts structured into 15 50-minute sessions. The objective was to explicitly develop cognitive strategies that allow the reader to construct the meaning of the text from previous knowledge, as well as to acquire the necessary skills to regulate and control the entire comprehension process. To this end, the participants of the experimental group were instructed in the formulation of questions of different types: literal, inferential and critical through a series of questions that guided the process of analysis and reflection of the students. These questions had a multiple format with several answer options that were elaborated, both individually and in groups, and were later exchanged between the colleagues who answered them and then corrected each other, ending with a sharing guided by the teacher. For the formulation of literal questions, attention was paid to the recognition of explicit information in texts through situations aimed at identifying details, sequencing events and facts in a chronological manner, capturing the meaning of words and sentences and remembering details and passages of the content. Among the clues offered for its formulation are the following: what, where, how, when, for what, with whom? The inferential questions were oriented to make relationships between parts of the text to interpret and make deductions from the information that appears explicitly. In order to teach them, they tried to predict information, deduce messages, infer the meaning of words by their context, prepare small summaries and propose titles to small texts. The questions that were used for its exercise were the following: why, what would happen before..., what does it mean when..., what title would you put, what is it, what does it mean, what relationship is there...? The critical questions were aimed at making value judgments, critical analysis, making arguments to sustain opinions, distinguishing a fact from an opinion, analyzing the author's intention and drawing conclusions from the content, all of which generated a dialogical interaction between the different companions of the group that led to mutual reflection and shared learning. Among the questions that were used for his instruction are: what do you think?, what do you think?, how should it be?, what do you think?, what do you think of...?, what would you have done? On the other hand, the control group carried out the readings individually and collectively to later answer the questions individually and in groups, ending with the joint correction of the whole group class guided by the teacher. Results In order to analyse the change in the variables under study, descriptive analyses were carried out with the scores obtained in the tests administered in the pretest, postest and post pretest difference, as well as variance analysis with the pretest scores 109.

(18) (MANOVAs, ANOVAs) and covariance analysis (MANCOVAs, ANCOVAs) of the post pretest differences in the experimental and control groups in the variables measured before and after the intervention. The statistical program SPSS was used in the analysis of the data. Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene tests were applied to check the normality and homocedasticity of the sample. The level of significance was set at p < .05. Means and standard deviations of variables were calculated and multivariate variance analyses (MANOVA) were performed to study comparisons between groups to delimit between which groups significant differences occurred. In addition, the effect size (Cohen d) was calculated (small < .50; moderate between .50 and .79; large ≥ .80). The results of the MANOVA pretest for the set of variables showed that before the intervention there were no significant differences between the experimental and control groups, F(1.52)=1.73, p > .05. However, MANCOVA results for post-pretest differences, using pretest scores as covariates were significant F(1.52)=2.38, p < .05. These data show that the intervention programme had a significant effect. In order to analyze the change in each variable, descriptive and variance analyses were carried out, which are presented in Table 1. Changes in comprehension at syntactic level In order to analyze the effectiveness of the program in the development of reading comprehension in decoding effectiveness, the changes in the scores obtained in the PROLEC-R Test were studied. MANOVA pretest did not show significant differences between experimental and control, F(1.52)=2.34, p >.05, however, the results of MANCOVA postest-pretest, F(1.52)=1.56, p < .05, confirmed significant differences between the two conditions. With respect to the analysis of each variable independently in the grammatical structures, a greater increase was observed in the experimental ones (M =. 96) than in the control group (M = .39). The ANOVA pretest results showed that at this stage there were no significant differences between experimental and control, F(1.52)=7.42, p > .05. However, post-pretest ANCOVA showed statistically significant differences between conditions, F(1.52)=12.56, p < .001. The effect size was moderate (r = .63). In the sentence comprehension variable, there are also higher increases in the experimental ones (M = 1.20) compared to those of the control group (M = .51). ANOVA pretest results showed that a priori there were no significant differences between both conditions, F(1.52)=8.64, p < .05, performing an ANCOVA of post-test differences that indicated significant differences, F(1.152)=15.64, p < 001, being the size of the large effect (r = .76). This highlights an improved ability to recognise written information at syntactic level attributable to the intervention programme. Changes in relational semantic understanding In order to evaluate the impact of the program on relational semantic comprehension in small texts, changes in ACL-4 scores were analyzed. The MANOVA pretest carried out with the set of the four measured variables (literal, inferential, reorganizative and critical comprehension) did not show significant differences in the pretest phase between experimental and control, F(1.152)=2.43, p > .05. However, significant differences were found in the post-pretest MANOVA, F(1.152)=3.61, p < .01, as well as in the post-pretest MANCOVA, F(1.152)=4.21, p < .01. As can be seen in Table 1, in the variable literal comprehension, the experimental sample obtains an 110.

(19) increase (M = .48), higher than that achieved by the control group (M = .22). ANOVA pretest results showed that at this stage there were no significant differences between experimental and control, F(1.152)=.231, p > .05. However, ANCOVA data from postpretest differences showed significant results, F(1,152)=2.40, p < .05. The size of the effect was small (r = .26). In the inferential comprehension variable, the experimental sample obtains an increase (M = . 68), higher than that achieved by the control group (M = .13). The results of the ANOVA pretest showed that at this stage there were no significant differences between experimental and control, F(1.152)=. 325, p > .05. However, ANCOVA data from post-pretest differences showed significant results, F(1.152)=7.43, p < .001. The effect size was moderate (r = .63). In the reorganizative comprehension variable, there are also higher increases in the experimental ones (M = .64) compared to those of the control group (M = .19). The results of the ANOVA pretest showed that a priori there were no significant differences between the two conditions, F(1.152)=. 439, p < .05, with an ANCOVA of post-pretest differences indicating significant differences, F(1.152)=9.52, p < 001, with moderate effect size (r = .67). As in the previous variables, in the case of critical comprehension also the experimental group overcomes in its difference of post-pretest means (M = .61) to the subjects of the control group (M = .18). The ANOVA pretest showed that before starting the intervention there were no significant differences between experimental and control F(1.152)=.286, p > .01, performing an ANCOVA of the post-pretest differences that also indicated significant differences, F(1.152)=8.73, p < .001. The effect size was moderate (r = .62). These data highlight a significant improvement in the development of relational semantic understanding in textual structures attributable to the intervention program, as evidenced by the significant increase in literal, inferential, reorganizational, and critical understanding. Changes in metacognitive reading skills To assess whether the program was effective in developing the metacognitive skills involved in learning to read, changes in scores achieved on the Reading Consciousness Scale (ESCOLA) were analyzed. The MANOVA pretest carried out for the set of test variables showed that there were no significant differences in the pretest phase between experimental and control, F(1.152)=3.15, p > .05. However, significant differences were found in the post-pretest MANOVA, F(1.152)=2.37, p < .01, as in the post-pretest MANCOVA, F(1.152)=3.28, p < .01. As can be seen in Table 1, in the planning variable the experimental group obtains an improvement (M = .55), greater than that obtained by the control group (M = .15). The results of the ANOVA pretest showed that at this stage there were no significant differences between experimental and control, F(1.152)=. 308, p > .05. However, ANCOVA data from post-pretest differences indicated significant results, F(1.152)=5.06, p < .01. The effect size was moderate (r = .53). In the supervision variable there are also higher increases in the experimental ones (M = .67) compared to those of the control group (M = .24). In the ANOVA pretest the data obtained showed that at this stage there were no significant differences between experimental and control, F(1.152)=.145, p > .05. However, ANCOVA post-pretest differences data indicated significant results, F(1.152)=7.26, p < .01, with moderate effect size (r = . 65). There was also a significant trend improvement in evaluation, with a greater increase in the 111.

(20) experimental (M = .70) than in the students belonging to the control group (M = .28). The results of the ANOVA pretest showed that at this stage there were no significant differences between experimental and control, F(1,152)=. 243, p > .05. However, ANCOVA data from post-pretest differences indicated significant results, F(1.152)=6.54, p < .01. The effect size was moderate (r = .62). These data show an improvement in the learning of reading strategiesattributable to the intervention programme implemented.. 112.

(21) Table 1. Typical Means and Deviations in textual reading comprehension and results of the analysis of variance and covariance for the experimental and control group. Experimental Group (n = 58). Variables. Control Group (n = 60). Experimental - Control (n = 118) Anova Ancova Pre-Post Pre-Post F (1, 52) F (1, 52). Anova Pretest F (1, 52). d. .72 .37 .68 .71. . 231 . 325 .439 .286. .24 .56 .63 .57. 3.60* 5.46*** 5.47*** 3.63***. 2.40* 7.43*** 9.52*** 8.73***. .39 .51. .67 .52. 7.42 8.64. .58 .74. 11.43** 14.51***. 12.56*** 15.64***. .63 .76. .15 .24 .28. .65 .34 .57. .308 .145 .243. . 46 .53 .56. 4.65** 7.38** 6.25**. 5.06** 7.26** 6.54**. .53 .65 .62. Pre M DT. Post M. Pre-Post DT M DT. Pre Post M DT M. Pre-Post DT M DT. 1.91 1.84 1.62 1.45. .60 .64 .67 .52. 2.39 2.42 2.26 2.06. .82 .56 .72 .54. .48 .68 .64 .61. .82 .51 .42 .37. 1.93 1.91 1.60 1.46. .82 .85 .52 .62. 2.15 2.04 1.79 1.64. .64 .71 .63 .82. .22 .13 .19 .18. 1.87 1.65. .26 .54. 2.83 2.85. .53 .47. .96 1.20. .71 .52. 1.91 1.63. .62 .51. 2.30 2.04. .63 .61. 1.43 1.45 1.44. .53 .37 .54. 1.98 2.12 2.14. .43 .53 .54. .55 .67 .70. .53 .61 .42. 1.45 .72 1.48 .63 1.51 .76. 1.60 1.72 1.79. .28 .36 .58. d. ACL-4 C. Literal C. Inferential C. Reorganizing C. Criticism. PROLEC-R E. Grammars C. Prayers. . 26 . 63 .67 .62. SCHOOL Planning Supervision Evaluation. * p<.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001. 113.