Text-Processing Differences in Adolescent Adequate and Poor Comprehenders Reading Accessible and Challenging Narrative and Informational Text

Datos Bibliográficos

ID10721024
AutoresCarolyn A Denton (0000-0001-5103-1219, University of Texas Health Science Center; Houston USA), Mischa Enos (University of Texas Health Science Center; Houston USA), Mary J York (University of Houston; Texas USA), Mary York (0000-0002-8828-9800, University of Houston), David J Francis (0000-0003-3944-3274, University of Houston; Texas USA), Marcia A Barnes (0000-0002-9446-3000, University of Texas at Austin; USA), Paulina A Kulesz (0000-0002-6372-794X, University of Houston; Texas USA), Jack Μ Fletcher (0000-0002-1181-6721, University of Houston), Jack M Fletcher (University of Houston; Texas USA), Suzanne Carter (0000-0002-4757-8577, University of Texas Health Science Center; Houston USA)
Año2015
Volumen50
Número4
Páginas393-416
Fecha de publicación2015-10-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaReading Research Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0034-0553 • E-ISSN: 1936-2722
EditorialWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/rrq.105
OpenAlexW2168207119
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas18
Referencias citadas58

Based on the analysis of 620 think-aloud verbal protocols from students in grades 7, 9, and 11, we examined students' conscious engagement in inference generation, paraphrasing, verbatim text repetition, and monitoring while reading narrative or informational texts that were either at or above the students' current reading levels. Students were randomly assigned to read informational or narrative text, and each student read two texts in their assigned genre—one accessible and one challenging. The research question addressed the combinations of text processes that best differentiated four groups of readers: (1) adequate comprehenders who read narrative and (2) informational text and (3) poor comprehenders who read narrative and (4) informational text. Canonical discriminant analysis (CDA) revealed that the four groups were best differentiated by two latent, underlying functions related to (a) a combination of inference generation in accessible text and paraphrasing in both accessible and difficult text (On-Level Inference/Paraphrasing) and (b) monitoring in both accessible and difficult text (Monitoring). Poor comprehenders who read informational text were significantly lower than the other three groups on On-Level Inference/Paraphrasing. Poor comprehenders in both genres were significantly lower on Monitoring than adequate comprehenders who read informational text. A second CDA further examining the effects of text difficulty identified one latent function primarily explained by inference generation (Inference). Text difficulty had a significant impact on adequate comprehenders' Inference in narrative text. Implications for research and practice are discussed

Cognitive psychology · Comprehension · Inference · Linguistics · Narrative · Natural language processing · Reading (process) · Reading comprehension · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Educational Strategies and Epistemologies · Psychology · Reading and Literacy Development · Text Readability and Simplification