What predicts adult readers’ understanding of STEM texts?
- 527 Downloads
The current study examined the relations among key variables that underlie reading comprehension of expository science texts in a diverse population of adult native English readers. Using Mechanical Turk to sample a range of adult readers, the study also examined the effect of text presentation on readers’ comprehension and knowledge structure established after reading. In Study 1, ratings of situational interest, select reading background variables, and select measures of readers’ knowledge structure accounted for significant variance in comprehension. In Study 2, the knowledge structure metrics of primacy, recency, and node degree as well as several text ratings were found to be comparable across text presentation formats. Participants who read the text sentence-by-sentence obtained higher scores on measures of comprehension and provided higher ratings of situational interest than those who received the whole paragraph text at once. Knowledge structure measures for the sentence-by-sentence and paragraph formats were similar (68% overlap). We discuss implications for future research examining factors that underlie the successful comprehension of science texts.
KeywordsReading comprehension Expository text Science text STEM Reader characteristics Mechanical turk
This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (BCS-1533625). Any opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
- Afflerbach, P. (1986). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers’ importance assignment process. In J. A. Niles & R.V. Lalik (Eds.), National reading conference yearbook. Vol. 35: Solving problems in literacy: Learners, teachers and researchers (pp, 30–40). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.Google Scholar
- Cañas, A. J. (April, 2009). What are Propositions?…from a concept mapping perspective. Available from http://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/proposition.php.
- Clariana, R. B. (2010a). Deriving individual and group knowledge structure from network diagrams and from essays. In Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 117–130). Springer US.Google Scholar
- Clariana, R. B. (2010b). Multi-decision approaches for eliciting knowledge structure. In Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 41–59). Springer US.Google Scholar
- Clariana, R. B., & Wallace, P. E. (2009). A comparison of pair-wise, list-wise, and clustering approaches for eliciting structural knowledge in information systems courses. International Journal of Instructional Media, 36(3), 287–302.Google Scholar
- De Leeuw, J., & Mair, P. (2009). Multidimensional scaling using majorization: SMACOF in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 31, 1–30.Google Scholar
- Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Coherence cues mapping during comprehension. In J. Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships in the production and comprehension of text (pp. 3–22). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In A. León & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19–50). Mahwah: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [white paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 549–571. doi: 10.3102/00346543060004549.
- Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students' recall of expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(4), 465–483. doi: 10.2307/747644.
- Kobayashi, M. (2004). Reading comprehension assessment: From text perspectives. Scientific Approaches to Language, 3, 129–157.Google Scholar
- Li, P., & Clariana, R. (2017). Reading comprehension in L1 and L2: An integrative approach. Journal of Neurolinguistics. (in press)Google Scholar
- Loan, F. A. (2009). Impact of new technology on reading habits: A glimpse on the world literature. Role of School Libraries in Quality Education, 212–218.Google Scholar
- Lundeberg, M. A. (1987). Metacognitive aspects of reading comprehension: Studying understanding in legal case analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 407–432. doi: 10.2307/747700.
- Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: American Elsevier Publication Co.Google Scholar
- Meyer, B. J. F., & Pollard, C. (2009). Applied learning and aging: A closer look at reading comprehension. In J. E. Birren & K. Warner Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (6th ed., pp. 233–260). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Olszak, I., & Curie-Sklodowska, M. (2015). The effect of online tools on reading habits among teenage students. Model of chances and dangers. English for Specific Purposes, 45(16), 1–12.Google Scholar
- O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2002). What’s a science student to do? In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 24, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.Google Scholar
- Poindexter, M. T., & Clariana, R. B. (2006). The influence of relational and proposition-specific processing on structural knowledge and traditional learning outcomes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(2), 177–187.Google Scholar
- R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.
- Radach, R., Huestegge, L., & Reilly, R. (2008). The role of global top-down factors in local eye-movement control in reading. Psychological Research, 72(6), 675–688. doi: 10.1007/s00426-008-0173-3.
- Schraw, G., Bruning, R., & Svoboda, C. (1995). Sources of situational interest. Journal of Literacy Research, 27(1), 1–17.Google Scholar