Article

Reader and text factors in reading comprehension processes

Journal of Research in Reading (Impact Factor: 1.25). 04/2010; 34(4):365 - 383. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01436.x

ABSTRACT The effects of epistemic beliefs and text structure on cognitive processes during comprehension of scientific texts were investigated. On-line processes were measured using think-aloud (Experiment 1) and reading time (Experiment 2) methodologies. Measures of off-line comprehension, prior knowledge and epistemic beliefs were obtained. Results indicated that readers adjust their processing as a function of the interaction between epistemic beliefs and text structure. Readers with misconceptions and more sophisticated epistemic beliefs engage in conceptual change processes, but only when reading refutation texts. Results also showed that memory for text is not affected by differences in epistemic beliefs or text structure. These findings contribute to our understanding of the relations among factors associated with text comprehension and have implications for theories of conceptual change.

1 Follower
 · 
321 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our aim in the present paper is to discuss a “cognitive view” of reading comprehension, with particular attention to research findings that have the potential to improve our understanding of difficulties in reading comprehension. We provide an overview of how specific sources of difficulties in inference making, executive functions, and attention allocation influence reading comprehension processes and outcomes and may lead to reading comprehension problems. Finally, we discuss how the consideration of these potential sources of difficulty have practical implications for the design and selection of instructional materials.
    Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 02/2014; 29(1). DOI:10.1111/ldrp.12025
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: objetivo de este trabajo es señalar los aportes que los estudios acerca de la comprensión del discurso escrito ex-positivo, el discurso oral no expositivo y el discurso oral expositivo pueden hacer a la promoción del aprendizaje en el ámbito educativo. A su vez, destacar la importancia de realizar nuevos estudios que consideren las variables que facilitan la comprensión del discurso escrito expositivo, y no se han investigado en relación con el discurso oral expositivo. Con este fin, se presentan estudios acerca del diseño de textos de refutación y procedimientos de revisión de textos en la comprensión del discurso escrito expositivo. A su vez, se presentan estudios acerca del procesamiento de errores del habla, claves prosódicas, conexiones causales, y marcadores del discurso en la comprensión del dis-curso oral no expositivo. Finalmente, se presentan estudios acerca del rol de los marcadores del discurso, velocidad de dicción y entrenamiento en habilidades cognitivas en la comprensión del discurso oral expositivo. Se señala que la consideración de toda esta serie de estudios puede contribuir a decidir qué cambios introducir en los materiales didácticos escritos para facilitar la comprensión lectora, y qué variables acerca de la comprensión del discurso oral expositivo y no expositivo se puede tener en cuenta a la hora de exponer una clase. Palabras clave: Discurso Expositivo; Comprensión; Discurso Oral. The aim of this paper was to highlight the contribution of studies on the comprehension of expository written dis-course, and expository and non-expository oral discourse to the facilitation of student learning. It also draws attention to the importance of conducting new studies to explore the role of the variables that facilitate expository written dis-course and which have not been investigated in relation to expository oral discourse. Studies that have focused on the design of refutational texts and text revision procedures in the comprehension of expository written discourse are pre-sented, as well as studies on the processing of disfluencies, prosodic cues, causal connections and discourse markers in the comprehension of non-expository oral discourse. Finally, studies on the role of discourse markers, speech rate and metacognitive strategy instruction are presented. It is suggested that these studies can contribute to deciding what revisions to make to written materials in order to improve reading comprehension, and what variables that facilitate the comprehension of expository and non-expository oral discourse to take into account when presenting a lecture. Se agradece a los revisores anónimos por sus comentarios y sugerencias, los cuales contribuyeron a mejorar este trabajo. The importance of studying the role of establishing discourse connections in the comprehension of expository oral discourse Copyright © 2013 Escritos de Psicología ISSN 1989-3809 DOI: 10.5231/psy.writ.2013.2306 Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas -Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina La importancia de comenzar a investigar el rol del establecimiento de conexiones entre enunciados en la comprensión del discurso oral expositivo
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of epistemic beliefs and knowledge representations in cognitive and metacognitive processing when learning about physics concepts through text. Specifically, we manipulated the representation of physics concepts in texts about Newtonian mechanics and explored how these texts interacted with individuals’ epistemic beliefs to facilitate or constrain learning. Results revealed that when individuals’ epistemic beliefs were consistent with the knowledge representations in their assigned texts, they performed better on various measures of learning (use of processing strategies, text recall, and changes in misconceptions) than when their epistemic beliefs were inconsistent with the knowledge representations. These results have implications for how researchers conceptualize epistemic beliefs and support contemporary views regarding the context sensitivity of individuals’ epistemic beliefs.
    Learning and Instruction 02/2012; 22:62-77. DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.06.003 · 3.73 Impact Factor