Tarea Cognitiva de Detección y Corrección de Errores en la Comprensión de Textos Narrativos en Niños de Básica Primaria

Universitas Psychologica (Colombia) Num.3 Vol.9 01/2010; 9(3). DOI: 10.11144/851
Source: OAI

ABSTRACT Desarrollo (SC 13830), Autorregulación (SC 23180), Metacognición (SC 31040), Comprensión de lectura (SC 43110).

Download full-text


Available from: Hugo Escobar Melo, Dec 25, 2014
17 Reads
  • British Journal of Educational Studies 05/1992; 40(2). DOI:10.2307/3121399 · 0.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Metacognitive variables influence students' learning from science texts. This article deals with the comprehension monitoring abilities of secondary school science students, one of the areas of metacognition which has drawn considerable attention from researchers. The aims of the study are, in particular: (a) to know the extent to which comprehension is monitored by secondary science students as revealed by inconsistency detection in manipulated science texts, and (b) to identify the strategies used to regulate comprehension by the students who detect the inconsistencies. The results indicate that knowing that one understands or fails to understand science texts could be as important a problem as understanding proper. Besides, some incorrect regulatory strategies used by students who notice the inconsistencies in the texts are identified. These could also have an annoying influence in the regulatory behavior of students when studying regular science texts.
    Journal of Research in Science Teaching 05/1990; 27(5):447 - 460. DOI:10.1002/tea.3660270505 · 2.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Levy (1983) demonstrated that more spelling errors were detected, within a limited time period, when familiar passages were proofread than when unfamiliar passages were proofread. In the present series, Experiment 1 eliminated a possible confound in the Levy (1983) studies and showed that errors were detected both faster and more accurately in familiar texts. Experiment 2 demonstrated higher order involvement in the proofreading transfer effect, suggesting that a strictly word-level account was insufficient. Experiment 3 explored the proofreader’s sensitivity to the semantic properties of the proofreading passage, showing that the familiarity effect resulted from more efficient processing, not from lack of either visual or semantic analyses. The results are more consistent with a resource-allocation explanation than with either a visual-scanning or a skilled-visual-processing account.
    Memory & Cognition 12/1984; 12(6):621-32. DOI:10.3758/BF03213351 · 1.92 Impact Factor
Show more