Annals of Dyslexia

, 59:99

How word decoding skill impacts text memory: The centrality deficit and how domain knowledge can compensate

Article

Abstract

We examined text memory in children with word reading deficits to determine how these difficulties impact representations of text meaning. We show that even though children with poor word decoding recall more central than peripheral information, they show a significantly bigger deficit relative to controls on central than on peripheral information. We call this the centrality deficit and argue that it is the consequence of insufficient cognitive resources for connecting ideas together due to these children’s resources being diverted from comprehension to word decoding. We investigated a possible compensatory mechanism for making these connections. Because a text representation is a synthesis of text information and a reader’s prior knowledge, we hypothesized that having knowledge of the passage topic might reduce or eliminate the centrality deficit. Our results support this knowledge compensation hypothesis: The centrality deficit was evident when poor readers did not have prior knowledge, but was eliminated when they did. This presents an exciting avenue to pursue for possible remediation of reading comprehension in children with word identification difficulties.

Keywords

Centrality Comprehension Memory for text Prior knowledge Reading disability 

References

  1. Alba, J. W., Alexander, S. G., Hasher, L., & Caniglia, K. (1981). The role of context in the encoding of information. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Learning and Memory, 7, 283–292. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.7.4.283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1991). Effects of centrality on retrieval of text-based concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 932–939. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.17.5.932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, M. A., & Dennis, M. (1996). Reading comprehension deficits arise from diverse sources: Evidence from readers with and without developmental brain pathology. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading Comprehension Difficulties: Processes and Intervention, pp. 251–278. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, M. A., Dennis, M., & Haefele-Kalvaitis, J. (1996). The effects of knowledge availability and knowledge accessibility on coherence and elaborative inferencing in children from six to fifteen years of age. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61, 216–241. doi:10.1006/jecp.1996.0015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Vermeulen, K., & Fulton, C. (2006). Paths to reading comprehension in at-risk second-grade readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(4), 334–351. doi:10.1177/00222194060390040701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Britton, B. K., Meyer, B. J. F., Hodge, M. H., & Glynn, S. M. (1980). Effects of the organization of text on memory: Tests of retrieval and response criterion hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 6, 620–629.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of metacognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1–8. doi:10.2307/1128873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure. Reading and Writing, 11, 489–503. doi:10.1023/A:1008084120205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 683–696. doi:10.1348/000709905X67610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2007). Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  12. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference making ability, and their relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29, 850–859.Google Scholar
  13. Chiesi, H. L., Spilich, G. J., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 257–273. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90146-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cirilo, R. K., & Foss, D. J. (1980). Text structure and reading time for sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 96–109. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90560-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Curran, C. E., Kintsch, E., & Hedberg, N. (1996). Learning-disabled adolescents’ comprehension of naturalistic narratives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 494–507. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Curtis, M. E. (1980). Development of components of reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 656–669. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.72.5.656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunn, L. M., & Markwardt, F. C. (1970). Examiner’s manual: Peabody individual achievement test. Circle Pines: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  18. Espin, C. A., Cevasco, J., van den Broek, P., Baker, S., & Gersten, R. (2007). History as narrative: The nature and quality of historical understanding for students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 174–182. doi:10.1177/00222194070400020801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fletcher, C. R., & Bloom, C. P. (1988). Causal reasoning and comprehension of simple narrative texts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 235–244. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(88)90052-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goetz, E. T., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Radin, D. I. (1983). Reading in perspective: What real cops and pretend burglars look for in a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 500–510. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.75.4.500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (1998). Facilitating knowledge-based inferences in less-skilled readers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 149–172. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen, C. L. (1978). Story retelling used with average and learning disabled readers as a measure of reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1, 62–69. doi:10.2307/1510938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kamalski, J., Sanders, T., & Lentz, L. (2008). Coherence marking, prior knowledge, and comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out. Discourse Processes, 45(4), 323–345. doi:10.1080/01638530802145486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kamhi, A. (2007). Knowledge deficits: The true crisis in education. The ASHA Leader, 12, 28–29.Google Scholar
  26. Keenan, J. M., & Brown, P. (1984). Children’s reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in a text. Child Development, 55, 1556–1569. doi:10.2307/1130026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281–300. doi:10.1080/10888430802132279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Wadsworth, S. J., DeFries, J. C., & Olson, R. K. (2006). Genetic and environmental influences on reading and listening comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 79–91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00293.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Kintsch, W., & Keenan, J. (1973). Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 257–274. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90036-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kintsch, W., Kozminsky, E., Streby, W. J., McKoon, G., & Keenan, J. M. (1975). Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variables. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 196–214. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80065-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2001). Qualitative Reading Inventory–3. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  34. Long, D. L., Oppy, B. J., & Seely, M. R. (1994). Individual differences in the time course of inferential processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1456–1470. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lyon, G. R. (1995). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of dyslexia, 45, 3–27. doi:10.1007/BF02648210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meyer, B.J.F. (1974). The organization of prose and its effect on recall. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  37. Nation, K. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In M. J. Snowing & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 248–265). Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nation, K., Clarke, P., & Snowling, M. (2002). General cognitive ability in children with reading comprehension difficulties. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 549–560. doi:10.1348/00070990260377604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oakhill, J. (1994). Individual differences in children’s text comprehension. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics, pp. 821–848. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  40. Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Bryant, P. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(4), 443–468. doi:10.1080/01690960344000008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Brien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1987). The role of causal connections in the retrieval of text. Memory & Cognition, 15, 419–427.Google Scholar
  42. Olson, R. K. (2006). Genes, environment, and dyslexia: The 2005 Norman Geschwind memorial lecture. Annals of Dyslexia, 56, 205–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Olson, R. K., Forsberg, H., Wise, B., & Rack, J. (1994). Measurement of word recognition, orthographic, and phonological skills. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of Reference for the Assessment of Learning Disabilities: New Views on Measurement Issues, pp. 243–277. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  44. Paris, S. G., & Stahl, S. A. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension and assessment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 16–20. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Samuelstuen, M. S., & Braten, I. (2005). Decoding, knowledge, and strategies in comprehension of expository text. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 107–117. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2005.00441.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shankweiler, D. (1989). How problems of comprehension are related to difficulties in decoding. In D. Shankweiler & I. Y. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  49. Shankweiler, D. (1999). Words to meanings. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 113–127. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0302_2.Google Scholar
  50. Shapiro, A. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable can change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 159–189. doi:10.3102/00028312041001159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smiley, S. S., Oakley, D. D., Worthen, D., Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1977). Recall of thematically relevant material by adolescent good and poor readers as function of written versus oral presentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 381–387. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.69.4.381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Snowling, M. J. (2000). Dyslexia. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  53. Spilich, G. J., Vesonder, G. T., Chiesi, H. L., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Text processing of domain-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 275–290. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90155-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Swanson, H. L., & Alexander, J. (1997). Cognitive processes as predictors of word recognition and reading comprehension in learning disabled and skilled readers: Revisiting the specificity hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 128–158. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55–64. doi:10.1207/SLDRP1501_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Trabasso, T., & Sperry, L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 595–611. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(85)90048-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 12, 1–25.Google Scholar
  58. van den Broek, P. (1988). The effects of causal relations and hierarchical position on the importance of story statements. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 1–22. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(88)90045-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van den Broek, P., & Trabasso, T. (1986). Causal networks versus goal hierarchies in summarizing text. Discourse Processes, 9, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of memory representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading, pp. 71–98. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Weschler, D. (1974). Examiner’s manual: Weschler’s intelligence scale for children (4th ed.). San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  62. Winograd, P. N. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 404–425. doi:10.2307/747913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of achievement. Itasca: Riverside.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Dyslexia Association 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations