Text-Processing Differences in Adolescent Adequate and Poor Comprehenders Reading Accessible and Challenging Narrative and Informational Text
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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Reading research quarterly 2015-10, Vol.50 (4), p.393-416 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 416 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 393 |
container_title | Reading research quarterly |
container_volume | 50 |
creator | Denton, Carolyn A. Enos, Mischa York, Mary J. Francis, David J. Barnes, Marcia A. Kulesz, Paulina A. Fletcher, Jack M. Carter, Suzanne |
description | 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 genreone 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/rrq.105 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1718296019</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1075036</ericid><jstor_id>43999132</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>43999132</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4415-1f040feed7dd9b38635aafba5e3cccdada6ce4c377076faa7f2b473d0ba614e73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMFuEzEQhi0EEiEgngBpJQ4c0IK9ttfZY5SW0lCVEhWBuFhee9xu2NjJeAPtQ_DOOCyKxAFfPKPv06_RT8hzRt8wSqu3iLs8yAdkwhpel5WqqodkQikXJZWSPyZPUlrT_GTFJ-TXNdwN5RVGCyl14aY46bwHhJD3ogvF3MUekoUw5BF2ezNAYYIrrmLEYhE3W4RbCA4wFSsw7pAwt3-y2n40F7em7yHcHNClQTRD92Mk58FH3OQ9BtMXh0Oekkfe9Ame_f2n5PO70-vF-_Li49n5Yn5RWiGYLJmngnoAp5xrWj6ruTTGt0YCt9Y640xtQViuFFW1N0b5qhWKO9qamglQfEpejrlbjLs9pEGv4x7zFUkzxWZVU9Nc3pS8Gi2LMSUEr7fYbQzea0b1oWudu86DzOaL0QTs7NE6XTKqJOV15q9H_rPr4f5_MXq1-vRP2joNEY-24E3TMF5lXo68SwPcHbnB77pWXEn95fJMz5bfPojlV6EZ_w2N2KT1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1718296019</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Text-Processing Differences in Adolescent Adequate and Poor Comprehenders Reading Accessible and Challenging Narrative and Informational Text</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Education Source</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Denton, Carolyn A. ; Enos, Mischa ; York, Mary J. ; Francis, David J. ; Barnes, Marcia A. ; Kulesz, Paulina A. ; Fletcher, Jack M. ; Carter, Suzanne</creator><creatorcontrib>Denton, Carolyn A. ; Enos, Mischa ; York, Mary J. ; Francis, David J. ; Barnes, Marcia A. ; Kulesz, Paulina A. ; Fletcher, Jack M. ; Carter, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><description>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 genreone 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0034-0553</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1936-2722</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/rrq.105</identifier><identifier>CODEN: RRQUA6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Newark: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescence ; Adolescents ; and materials ; Comprehension ; Comprehension monitoring ; Critical discourse analysis ; Depth of (higher level ; Depth of (higher level, literal level, etc.) ; Difficulty Level ; Discourse analysis ; Discourse functions ; Discriminant Analysis ; Early adolescence ; Elementary school students ; etc. ; Experimental ; Experimental, quasi‐experimental ; Genre ; Grade 11 ; Grade 7 ; Grade 9 ; Inference ; Inferences ; Information ; Information Processing ; Informational text ; literal level ; Literary Genres ; Making inferences ; Metacognition ; methods ; Narratives ; Protocol Analysis ; quasi-experimental ; Quasiexperimental Design ; Reading Aloud to Others ; Reading Comprehension ; Reading Strategies ; Research methodology ; Secondary School Students ; Strategies ; Strategies, methods, and materials ; Struggling learners ; Students</subject><ispartof>Reading research quarterly, 2015-10, Vol.50 (4), p.393-416</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2015 International Literacy Association</rights><rights>2015 International Literacy Association</rights><rights>Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Oct-Dec 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4415-1f040feed7dd9b38635aafba5e3cccdada6ce4c377076faa7f2b473d0ba614e73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4415-1f040feed7dd9b38635aafba5e3cccdada6ce4c377076faa7f2b473d0ba614e73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43999132$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/43999132$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1075036$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Denton, Carolyn A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Enos, Mischa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>York, Mary J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Francis, David J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barnes, Marcia A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kulesz, Paulina A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fletcher, Jack M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carter, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><title>Text-Processing Differences in Adolescent Adequate and Poor Comprehenders Reading Accessible and Challenging Narrative and Informational Text</title><title>Reading research quarterly</title><addtitle>Read Res Q</addtitle><description>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 genreone 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.</description><subject>Adolescence</subject><subject>Adolescents</subject><subject>and materials</subject><subject>Comprehension</subject><subject>Comprehension monitoring</subject><subject>Critical discourse analysis</subject><subject>Depth of (higher level</subject><subject>Depth of (higher level, literal level, etc.)</subject><subject>Difficulty Level</subject><subject>Discourse analysis</subject><subject>Discourse functions</subject><subject>Discriminant Analysis</subject><subject>Early adolescence</subject><subject>Elementary school students</subject><subject>etc.</subject><subject>Experimental</subject><subject>Experimental, quasi‐experimental</subject><subject>Genre</subject><subject>Grade 11</subject><subject>Grade 7</subject><subject>Grade 9</subject><subject>Inference</subject><subject>Inferences</subject><subject>Information</subject><subject>Information Processing</subject><subject>Informational text</subject><subject>literal level</subject><subject>Literary Genres</subject><subject>Making inferences</subject><subject>Metacognition</subject><subject>methods</subject><subject>Narratives</subject><subject>Protocol Analysis</subject><subject>quasi-experimental</subject><subject>Quasiexperimental Design</subject><subject>Reading Aloud to Others</subject><subject>Reading Comprehension</subject><subject>Reading Strategies</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Secondary School Students</subject><subject>Strategies</subject><subject>Strategies, methods, and materials</subject><subject>Struggling learners</subject><subject>Students</subject><issn>0034-0553</issn><issn>1936-2722</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kMFuEzEQhi0EEiEgngBpJQ4c0IK9ttfZY5SW0lCVEhWBuFhee9xu2NjJeAPtQ_DOOCyKxAFfPKPv06_RT8hzRt8wSqu3iLs8yAdkwhpel5WqqodkQikXJZWSPyZPUlrT_GTFJ-TXNdwN5RVGCyl14aY46bwHhJD3ogvF3MUekoUw5BF2ezNAYYIrrmLEYhE3W4RbCA4wFSsw7pAwt3-y2n40F7em7yHcHNClQTRD92Mk58FH3OQ9BtMXh0Oekkfe9Ame_f2n5PO70-vF-_Li49n5Yn5RWiGYLJmngnoAp5xrWj6ruTTGt0YCt9Y640xtQViuFFW1N0b5qhWKO9qamglQfEpejrlbjLs9pEGv4x7zFUkzxWZVU9Nc3pS8Gi2LMSUEr7fYbQzea0b1oWudu86DzOaL0QTs7NE6XTKqJOV15q9H_rPr4f5_MXq1-vRP2joNEY-24E3TMF5lXo68SwPcHbnB77pWXEn95fJMz5bfPojlV6EZ_w2N2KT1</recordid><startdate>20151001</startdate><enddate>20151001</enddate><creator>Denton, Carolyn A.</creator><creator>Enos, Mischa</creator><creator>York, Mary J.</creator><creator>Francis, David J.</creator><creator>Barnes, Marcia A.</creator><creator>Kulesz, Paulina A.</creator><creator>Fletcher, Jack M.</creator><creator>Carter, Suzanne</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151001</creationdate><title>Text-Processing Differences in Adolescent Adequate and Poor Comprehenders Reading Accessible and Challenging Narrative and Informational Text</title><author>Denton, Carolyn A. ; Enos, Mischa ; York, Mary J. ; Francis, David J. ; Barnes, Marcia A. ; Kulesz, Paulina A. ; Fletcher, Jack M. ; Carter, Suzanne</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4415-1f040feed7dd9b38635aafba5e3cccdada6ce4c377076faa7f2b473d0ba614e73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adolescence</topic><topic>Adolescents</topic><topic>and materials</topic><topic>Comprehension</topic><topic>Comprehension monitoring</topic><topic>Critical discourse analysis</topic><topic>Depth of (higher level</topic><topic>Depth of (higher level, literal level, etc.)</topic><topic>Difficulty Level</topic><topic>Discourse analysis</topic><topic>Discourse functions</topic><topic>Discriminant Analysis</topic><topic>Early adolescence</topic><topic>Elementary school students</topic><topic>etc.</topic><topic>Experimental</topic><topic>Experimental, quasi‐experimental</topic><topic>Genre</topic><topic>Grade 11</topic><topic>Grade 7</topic><topic>Grade 9</topic><topic>Inference</topic><topic>Inferences</topic><topic>Information</topic><topic>Information Processing</topic><topic>Informational text</topic><topic>literal level</topic><topic>Literary Genres</topic><topic>Making inferences</topic><topic>Metacognition</topic><topic>methods</topic><topic>Narratives</topic><topic>Protocol Analysis</topic><topic>quasi-experimental</topic><topic>Quasiexperimental Design</topic><topic>Reading Aloud to Others</topic><topic>Reading Comprehension</topic><topic>Reading Strategies</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Secondary School Students</topic><topic>Strategies</topic><topic>Strategies, methods, and materials</topic><topic>Struggling learners</topic><topic>Students</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Denton, Carolyn A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Enos, Mischa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>York, Mary J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Francis, David J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barnes, Marcia A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kulesz, Paulina A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fletcher, Jack M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carter, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Reading research quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Denton, Carolyn A.</au><au>Enos, Mischa</au><au>York, Mary J.</au><au>Francis, David J.</au><au>Barnes, Marcia A.</au><au>Kulesz, Paulina A.</au><au>Fletcher, Jack M.</au><au>Carter, Suzanne</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1075036</ericid><atitle>Text-Processing Differences in Adolescent Adequate and Poor Comprehenders Reading Accessible and Challenging Narrative and Informational Text</atitle><jtitle>Reading research quarterly</jtitle><addtitle>Read Res Q</addtitle><date>2015-10-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>393</spage><epage>416</epage><pages>393-416</pages><issn>0034-0553</issn><eissn>1936-2722</eissn><coden>RRQUA6</coden><abstract>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 genreone 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.</abstract><cop>Newark</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/rrq.105</doi><tpages>24</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0034-0553 |
ispartof | Reading research quarterly, 2015-10, Vol.50 (4), p.393-416 |
issn | 0034-0553 1936-2722 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1718296019 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Education Source; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Adolescence Adolescents and materials Comprehension Comprehension monitoring Critical discourse analysis Depth of (higher level Depth of (higher level, literal level, etc.) Difficulty Level Discourse analysis Discourse functions Discriminant Analysis Early adolescence Elementary school students etc. Experimental Experimental, quasi‐experimental Genre Grade 11 Grade 7 Grade 9 Inference Inferences Information Information Processing Informational text literal level Literary Genres Making inferences Metacognition methods Narratives Protocol Analysis quasi-experimental Quasiexperimental Design Reading Aloud to Others Reading Comprehension Reading Strategies Research methodology Secondary School Students Strategies Strategies, methods, and materials Struggling learners Students |
title | Text-Processing Differences in Adolescent Adequate and Poor Comprehenders Reading Accessible and Challenging Narrative and Informational Text |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T20%3A16%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Text-Processing%20Differences%20in%20Adolescent%20Adequate%20and%20Poor%20Comprehenders%20Reading%20Accessible%20and%20Challenging%20Narrative%20and%20Informational%20Text&rft.jtitle=Reading%20research%20quarterly&rft.au=Denton,%20Carolyn%20A.&rft.date=2015-10-01&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=393&rft.epage=416&rft.pages=393-416&rft.issn=0034-0553&rft.eissn=1936-2722&rft.coden=RRQUA6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/rrq.105&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E43999132%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1718296019&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1075036&rft_jstor_id=43999132&rfr_iscdi=true |