Grade six students understanding of metaphor in informational text
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Metaphor research has become widespread. However, students’ understanding of metaphor in informational text has received little study. With increased use of informational trade books in the classroom, research in this area is needed. Fifty-five grade six students with Canadian English as their first language participated in the study. Their understanding of metaphors in excerpts from three recently published informational trade books was examined by the use of the reading think aloud technique and multiple choice activities. One think aloud was completed by each student in both individual and dyadic conditions. Multiple choice activities were completed individually after reading, but with the text available. The think-aloud protocols were examined using specific-trait analysis, holistic scoring, and miscue analysis. The multiple choice activities were scored against anticipated adult-like understanding and the results were subjected to standard statistical tests. Level of understanding of metaphors varied widely among students, with the overall average being about 65%. Contrary to prediction, understanding was significantly higher in the individual condition compared to the dyadic condition. Although part of this difference could be attributed to differences in passage difficulty, the anticipated scaffolding effect of reading with a partner was not found. The reading think aloud was a rich source of information about both the meaning students constructed and the meaning-construction process. The study suggested that the think aloud could be used in the classroom as an effective learning device, particularly in that it allowed less-capable readers to participate as equal partners in what might otherwise have been a frustrating reading task. Overall, there emerged a picture of students at various points along the path to full adult mastery of metaphor, with some students already demonstrating an adult level of understanding. Level of text understanding was consistent with level of metaphor understanding. The only metaphor-type effect identified was for metaphors with copula-verb syntactic-frame structure. Abstractness of the words in the metaphors did not affect meaning construction; however, conventionality of the metaphorical expressions did influence understanding.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».