Reader and text factors in reading comprehension
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.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Students are often asked to make evaluations of scientific explanations, which may involve judgments about the plausibility of competing alternatives. We examined undergraduate students' critical evaluations and plausibility perceptions of climate change when reading two different types of text: expository and refutation. Our findings show that greater critical evaluation and higher plausibility related to more knowledge after reading, but only with the refutation text. Furthermore, we found that greater plausibility had a stronger effect on knowledge after reading the refutation text, whereas greater background knowledge had a stronger effect on knowledge after reading the expository text. We also examined changes in students' plausibility and knowledge. There was significant changes in plausibility and knowledge with the refutation text, but no significant change in either variable with the expository text. These results suggest that evaluations and judgments about plausibility may be factors contributing to the refutation effect and knowledge reconstruction.0Comments 0Citations
- "In previous studies, refutation texts have demonstrated an advantage over other text structures in promoting knowledge reconstruction for a variety of topics, including for example, energy (Diakidoy, Kendeou, & Ioannides, 2003 ) and seasons (Broughton, Sinatra, & Reynolds, 2010; Cordova, Sinatra, Broughton, Taasoobshirazi, & Lombardi, 2014). Refutation texts are particularly effective in inducing conceptual change when the text structure is designed to promote both co-activation and critical thinking (Hynd, 2001; Kendeou, Muis, & Fulton, 2011; McCrudden & Kendeou, 2014). The processes of critical evaluation and co-activation by themselves may be insufficient for sustained knowledge reconstruction. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The study compared the comprehension processes and outcomes obtained with refutation and expository text and their association with learning outcomes. After a knowledge pretest, undergraduate students read an extended expository text or a corresponding refutation text that addressed three potential misconceptions about the scientific concept of energy. Think-aloud, cued recall, and posttest data indicated that the positive impact of refutation text was more associated with comprehension outcomes than processes. Refutation text did not influence comprehension processes but facilitated valid inference generation in recall and minimized the negative effects of distortions on learning. The findings suggest the timing of the refutation text effect to be later, after reading, and its nature to be that of neutralizing the influence of any misconceptions on learning from text instead of changing them.0Comments 0Citations
- "In this context, it has been acknowledged that the underlying mechanisms that may result in any learning gains with refutation text remain unclear. Consequently, several relatively recent studies have focused on the comprehension processes and outcomes with refutation texts (e.g., Ariasi & Mason, 2011; Diakidoy, Mouskounti, & Ioannides, 2011; Kendeou et al., 2011; Kendeou & van den Broek, 2007; Kendeou, Walsh, Smith, & O'Brien, 2014). This research, however, provides an incomplete picture as there has been no simultaneous focus on all three constructs of interest: comprehension processes, comprehension outcomes , and learning outcomes. "
- "There is also some evidence to suggest that relationships between beliefs about knowledge and performance may be mediated by strategic text processing. For example, students believing more in uncertain and complex knowledge seem more likely to engage in comprehension monitoring and bridging inferences (Kardash, & Howell, 2000) as well as in conceptual change processes (Kendeou et al., 2011). In comparison, the research base relating beliefs about knowing to single-text comprehension is more inconsistent and meager. "