Are Good Texts Always Better? Interactions of Text Coherence, Background Knowledge, and Levels of Understanding in Learning From Text
Danielle S. McNamara, Eileen Kintsch, Nancy Butler Songer, Walter Kintsch
University of Colorado Boulder Old Dominion University
阅读操作
确认中在文库中上传 PDF 后可生成中文音频讲解。
摘要与影响
Two experiments, theoretically motivated by the construction-integration model of text comprehension (W. Kintsch, 1988), investigated the role of text coherence in the comprehension of science texts. In Experiment 1, junior high school students' comprehension of one of three versions of a biology text was examined via free recall, written questions, and a key-word sorting task. This study demonstrates advantages for globally coherent text and for more explanatory text. In Experiment 2, interactions among local and global text coherence, readers' background knowledge, and levels of understanding were examined. Using the same methods as in Experiment 1, we examined students' comprehension of one of four versions of a text, orthogonally varying local and global coherence. We found that readers who know little about the domain of the text benefit from a coherent text, whereas high-knowledge readers benefit from a minimally coherent text. We argue that the poorly written text forces the knowledgeable readers to engage in compensatory processing to infer unstated relations in the text. These findings, however, depended on the level of understanding, text base or situational, being measured by the three comprehension tasks. Whereas the free-recall measure and text-based questions primarily tapped readers' superficial understanding of the text, the inference questions, problem-solving questions, and sorting task relied on a situational understanding of the text. This study provides evidence that the rewards to be gained from active processing are primarily at the level of the situation model rather than at the superficial level of text-base understanding.
逐年被引趋势
关键指标
同类平均 = 1
同领域 · 同年份 · 同类型
Google Scholar 与 OpenAlex 的被引统计范围不同,数值存在差异属正常。
AI 辅助阅读
依据:摘要
可就本文提问;依据不足时会说明。
学术脉络
学科主题
社会科学Reading and Literacy Development
Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes · Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
参考文献 37
此处列出前 3 条
引用本文 1,340
按被引量排序,此处列出前 3 条