Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 9, pp 1869–1890 | Cite as

Reading argumentative texts: comprehension and evaluation goals and outcomes

  • Irene-Anna N. Diakidoy
  • Melina C. Ioannou
  • Stelios A. Christodoulou
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The study is situated at the interface between reading comprehension and critical thinking research. Its purpose was to examine the influence of reading goals and argument quality on the comprehension and critical evaluation of argumentative texts. Young adult readers read to comprehend or evaluate texts on two different controversial issues. Argument quality was varied across text versions on the basis of the hasty generalization fallacy. Text versions varied with respect to the quality of the arguments included, but not in terms of argument content. Measures of comprehension included main claim recall, overall recall and inferences in recall. Text evaluation was measured with a rating task. The sample’s familiarity with the text topics was low, and prior beliefs were relatively neutral. The results indicated that an evaluation goal had a consistent positive effect on main claim and text recall when compared to comprehension goal. Argument quality, however, had no main or interactive effects on text evaluation. The findings indicate that reading to evaluate argumentative text facilitates the representation of its content and critical argument elements, such as the claim it promotes. However, this representation is not sufficient for analyzing and critically evaluating the text’s argument line. The implications of these findings are discussed in relation to current efforts to promote critical-analytic thinking skills in the context of reading and writing.

Keywords

Argumentative text Comprehension Argument evaluation Reading goals 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Philip Kargopoulos, George Floros, and Kalypso Iordanou for their insightful comments concerning argument fallacies, text cohesion, and argumentation skills.

References

  1. Aggelopoulos, G. (2010a). Moral resistance. Newspaper Ta Nea (February 26, 2010). From http://democracy-rethymno.blogspot.com/2010/03/blog-post_03.html.
  2. Aggelopoulos, G. (2010b). People come second. Newspaper Ta Nea (January 29, 2010). From http://www.tanea.gr/opinions/all-opinions/article/4557833/?iid=2.
  3. Alexander, P. A. (2014). Thinking critically and analytically about critical-analytic thinking: An introduction. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 469–476. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9283-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Britt, M. A., Kurby, C. A., Dandotkar, S., & Wolfe, C. R. (2008). I agreed with what? Memory for simple argument claims. Discourse Processes, 45, 52–84. doi: 10.1080/01638530701739207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. A. (2003). Constructing representations of arguments. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 794–810. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00002-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., & Sperl, C. T. (2001). Profiling persuasion: The role of beliefs, knowledge, and interest in the processing of persuasive texts that vary by argument structure. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 269–301. doi: 10.1080/10862960109548112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrnes, J. P., & Dunbar, K. N. (2014). The nature and development of critical-analytic thinking. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 477–493. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9284-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chambliss, M. J. (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 778–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diakidoy, I. N., Christodoulou, S. A., Floros, G., Iordanou, K., & Kargopoulos, P. V. (2015). Forming a belief: The contribution of comprehension to the evaluation and persuasive impact of argumentative text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 300–315. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007). On the resolution of conflict in dual process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 13, 321–339. doi: 10.1080/13546780601008825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans, J. St. B. T. (2012). Questions and challenges for the new psychology of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 18, 5–31. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2011.637674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glöckner, A., & Witteman, C. (2010). Beyond dual-process models: A categorisation of processes underlying intuitive judgement and decision making. Thinking & Reasoning, 16, 1–25. doi: 10.1080/13546780903395748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 3–26). NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers’ evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning & Instruction, 34, 42–57. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2005). The effects of readers’ misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction—integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klaczynski, P. A., Gordon, H. D., & Fauth, J. (1997). Goal-oriented critical reasoning and individual differences in critical reasoning biases. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 470–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ reasoning. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552. doi: 10.1177/0956797611402512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Larson, A. A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. A. (2009). Improving students’ evaluation of informal arguments. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 339–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Larson, M., Britt, A. M., & Larson, A. A. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology, 25, 204–224. doi: 10.1080/02702710490489908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Linderholm, T., Virtue, S., Tzeng, Y., & van den Broek, P. (2004). Fluctuations in the availability of information during reading: Capturing cognitive processes using the landscape model. Discourse Processes, 37, 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Long, D. L., & Lea, R. B. (2005). Have we been searching for meaning in all the wrong places: Defining the “search after meaning” principle in comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Macpherson, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 115–127. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297–384). Burlington: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Midgette, E., Haria, P., & MacArthur, C. (2008). The effects of content and audience awareness goals for revision on the persuasive essays of fifth- and eighth-grade students. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 131–151. doi: 10.10007/s11145.007-9067-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murphy, K. P., Holleran, A. T., Long, F. J., & Zeruth, A. J. (2005). Examining the complex roles of motivation and text medium in the persuasion process. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 418–438. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Neuman, Y. (2003). Go ahead, prove that God does not exist! On high school students’ ability to deal with fallacious arguments. Learning and Instruction, 13, 367–380. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00011-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Neuman, Y., & Weizman, E. (2003). The role of text representation in students’ ability to identify fallacious arguments. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 849–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Using argumentation Vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument-counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 549–565. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Brien, E. J., & Cook, A. E. (2016). Coherence threshold and the continuity of processing: The RI-Val model of comprehension. Discourse Processes, 53, 326–338. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1123341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo, L.-J. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 449–472. doi: 10.1086/518623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ricco, R. B. (2007). Individual differences in the analysis of informal reasoning fallacies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 459–484. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rips, L. J. (1998). Reasoning and conversation. Psychological Review, 105, 411–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking & Reasoning, 13, 225–247. doi: 10.1080/13546780600780796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the failure of cognitive ability to predict myside and one-sided thinking biases. Thinking & Reasoning, 14, 129–167. doi: 10.1080/13546780701679764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1081–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1999). Developments in argumentation theory. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 43–57). Amsterdam, NL: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  42. West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 930–941. doi: 10.1037/a0012842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wiley, J. (2005). A fair and balanced look at the news: What affects memory for controversial arguments? Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wiley, J., & Myers, J. L. (2003). Availability and accessibility of information and causal inferences from scientific text. Discourse Processes, 36, 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yeari, M., van den Broek, P., & Oudega, M. (2015). Processing and memory of central versus peripheral information as a function of reading goals: Evidence from eye-movements. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 1071–1097. doi: 10.1007/s11145-015-9561-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CyprusAglantziaCyprus

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options