Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:00:08.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of an Intervention in Active Strategies for Text Comprehension and Recall

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Mª Rosa Elosúa ,
Juan A. García-Madruga ,
Francisco Gutiérrez ,
Juan Luis Luque  and
Milagros Gárate
Mª Rosa Elosúa*
Affiliation:
Open University(U.N.E.D.)
Juan A. García-Madruga
Affiliation:
Open University(U.N.E.D.)
Francisco Gutiérrez
Affiliation:
Open University(U.N.E.D.)
Juan Luis Luque
Affiliation:
University of Málaga
Milagros Gárate
Affiliation:
University of Cantabria
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to María Rosa Elosúa, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED). Departamento de Psicología Básica I. Ciudad Universitaria, s/n. 28040 Madrid (Spain). Fax: 91 398 7972. E-mail: melosua@psi.uned.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of an intervention program to promote active text-processing strategies (main-idea identification and summarization) at two developmental levels (12- and 16-year-olds). The independent variables were training condition (experimental and control) and school level (7th and 10th grades). Several measures were taken as dependent variables: reading span, reading time, construction of macrostructure, and structural recall. The hypothesis claimed that training would increase comprehension and recall significantly. Furthermore, as a result of the training program, a reduction in developmental differences in the experimental groups at posttest was also expected. Results supported the predictions, showing a significant improvement in the experimental groups' reading comprehension and recall. These results are discussed in terms of the importance of active and self-controlled strategies for text comprehension and recall.

El objetivo de este estudio fue investigar los efectos de un programa de intervención para promover estrategias activas de procesamiento de textos (identificación de la idea principal y resumen), en dos niveles de desarrollo evolutivo (12 y 16 años). Las variables independientes fueron la condición de entrenamiento (experimental y control) y el nivel escolar (7° EGB y 2° BUP). Como variables dependientes se utilizaron varias medidas: la amplitud lectora, tiempo de lectura, construcción de la macroestructura y recuerdo estructural. Las hipótesis predecían que el entrenamiento aumentaría de manera significativa la comprensión y el recuerdo. Además, como resultado del programa de entrenamiento, se esperaba también una disminución en las diferencias evolutivas en los grupos experimentales en el postest. Los resultados confirmaron las predicciones mostrando una mejora significativa en la comprensión y recuerdo de los grupos experimentales. Estos resultados se interpretaron en términos de la importancia de las estrategias activas y de autocontrol en la comprensión y recuerdo de textos.

Keywords

main-idea identificationmain-idea summaryreading spanmacrostructureinterventionidentificación de la idea principalresumenamplitud lectoramacroestructuraintervención
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , November 2002 , pp. 90 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In Barr, R., Kamil, M.L., & Mosenthal, P. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Baumann, J.F. (1990). Teaching mean idea comprehension. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Bovair, S., & Kieras, D.E. (1985). A guide to propositional analysis for research on technical prose. In Britton, B.K. & Black, J.B. (Eds.), Understanding expository text. A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Britton, B.K., & Graesser, A.C. (Eds.). (1996). Models of understanding text. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In McGilly, K. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–272). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, A.L., & Day, J.D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A.L., & Palincsar, A.S. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies: A natural history of one program for enhancing learning. In Borbowski, J. & Day, J.D. (Eds.), Intelligence and cognition in special children: Comparative studies of giftedness, mental retardation and learning disabilities. New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cantor, J., Engle, R.W., & Hamilton, G. (1991). Short-term memory, working memory, and verbal abilities: How do they relate? Intelligence, 15, 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. [Spanish version: Elosúa, M.R., Gutiérrez, F., García Madruga, J.A., Luque, J.L, & Gárate, M. (1996). Adaptación española del “Reading Span Task,” de Daneman y Carpenter. Psicothema, 2, 383–395.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Beni, R., Palladino, P., Pazzaglia, F., & Cornoldi, C. (1998). Increases in intrusion errors and working memory deficit of poor comprehenders. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2, 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K.A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
García Madruga, J.A., Elosúa, M.R., Gutiérrez, F., Luque, J.L., & Gárate, M. (1999). Comprensión lectora y memoria operativa. Aspectos evolutivos e instruccionales. Barcelona: Paidós.Google Scholar
García Madruga, J.A., Gárate, M., Elosúa, M.R., Luque, J.L., & Gutiérrez, F. (1997). Comprensión lectora y memoria operativa: un estudio evolutivo. Cognitiva, 1, 99–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Madruga, J.A., Martín Cordero, J.I., Luque, J.L., & Santamaría, C. (1995). Comprensión y adquisición de conocimientos a partir de textos. Madrid: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
Gathercole, S.E., & Baddeley, A.D. (1993). Working memory and language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental models. Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 1, 122–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 2, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kintsch, E., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Strategies to promote active learning from text: Individual differences in background knowledge. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 2, 141–151.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtz, B.E. (1991). Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of text processing. In Denhière, G. & Rossi, J.P. (Eds.), Text and text processing (pp. 77–103). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
León, J.A., & Carretero, M. (1995). Intervention in comprehension and memory strategies: Knowledge and use of text structure. Learning and Instruction, 5, 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L., Sinatra, G.M., & Loxterman, J.A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D.S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effect of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piolat, A., & Roussey, J.Y. (1996). Students' drafting strategies and text quality. Learning and Instruction, 2, 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roehler, L.R., & Duffy, G.G. (1984). Direct explanation of comprehension processes. In Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., & Mason, J. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions. New York: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
Sanford, A.S., & Garrod, C.J. (1981). Understanding written language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T.A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
van Oostendorp, H., & Goldman, S.R. (Eds.). (1999). The construction of mental representations during reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Volet, S.E. (1997). Cognitive and affective variables in academic learning: The significance of direction and effort in students' goals. Learning and Instruction, 3, 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von der Weth, R., & Frankenberger, E. (1995). Strategies, competence and style-problem solving in engineering design. Learning and Instruction, 5, 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar