reading comprehension and inferences: comparison of ... · kintsch et van dijck (1978) and kintsch...

ReadingComprehensionandInferences:Comparisonof

LearningDisabledandSecondLanguageSpeakers

LucieGodardUniversitéduQuébecàMontréal

Readingcomprehension! Kintsch et Van Dijck (1978) and Kintsch (1983) present

a model where, while reading, learners process information triggering the elaboration of mental representations essential for comprehension.

! Kintsch (1983) proposed two phases: construction and integration.

!   For construction, readers choose information, activate schemas, and store pertinent information in the long-term memory.

!   During integration, they prune non-essential information.

!   Finally, readers build new networks for the information from the text being read.

ReadingmodelofKintschandVanDijckfromBlancetBrouillet(2003:70)

SurfaceForm

Textbase

SituaNonModel

Images

ReaderknowledgecontribuNonmicrostructure macrostructure

FROMTEXTNONTEXTUAL

Fletcher(1994);vanDijk&Kintch(1983);Zwaan&Radvansky(1998)

C-Imodel(Kinstsh,1998)

!  2levelsofrepresentaNon– TextBase– SituaNonmodel

!  2steps:ConstrucNon-IntegraNon

C-Imodel(Kintch,1998)

!  Construction : Through schema activation, readers add information wich are not in the text.

! Integration: Readers desactivate inappropriate constructions by inhibiting irrelevant material and improving relevant elements.

!  That is, during construction-integration, readers make inferences

Context:Genderdifferencesinreadingcomprehension

!  Gapbetweenboysangirlsgetslargerasthegradelevelincreases– accordingtoalongitudinalevaluaNonofNaNonalAssessmentofEducaNonalProgram(Klecker,2006)

– accordingtoPan-CanadianAssessmentProgram

Differencesbetweengender

! AmongallcountryparNcipaNngofOECD,Pisa(2009)showedthatgirlsoutperformedboysinreadingliteracy.ItisthesameinCanada

!  So,theCouncilofMinistersofEducaNon,CanadadecidedtosearchwhatcouldexplainthisdifferenceandChuyandNitulescu(2013)conductaresearchforthem.

! TheyusedPisa(2009)«datasettoinvesNgateandisolatethefactorscontribuNngtothegendergapinCanada»

ChuyandNitulescu(2013)research

•  Pisa’sassessmentaskedstudentmanyquesNonsaboutstrategiestheyused

•  Theyfound:•  «Meta-cogni+vestrategies:girlsweremoreawareofthemosteffec+vemeta-cogni+onstrategiescomparedtoboys…….Thefemaleadvantagewaspar+cularlylargefortheindexofsummarizingstrategies»

•  «ResultsofSimpleLinearRegressionModels:summarizingstrategywhichexplained16percentofthevaria+oninreadingscoresalone»1

1.AssessmentMaiers!No.5,2013–CMECp.7


!  «ifCanadianboyswereasawareofeffec+vesummarizingstrategiesasgirlsare,theirreadingscorewouldincreaseby15points(seeOECD,2010b,tableIII.3.4)»

!  ForexplainingthegendergaptheymadeOaxaca-BlinderdecomposiNon– Theyfoundenjoymentofreadingisimportantforexplainingthegap,butdoesgirlenjoybeierreadingbecausetheirreadingskillsarebeier?


!  «Besidesenjoymentofreading,tworeadingstrategiesshowedsignificantandimportantcontribu+onstothegenderdifferencesinreading:controlandsummarizing.– Controlisacogni+vestrategyfocusingonunderstandingatask’spurposeanditsmainconcepts,

– Summarizingisameta-cogni+vestrategyreflec+nganawarenessofthemostefficientwaystocondenseinforma+on».1

1.AssessmentMaiers!No.5,2013–CMECp.7

Oakhill,CainetYuill(1998)

Goodreaders• GoodtextrepresentaNon•  Longtermmemoryeasyaccess

Weakreaders•  CogniNveoverload

TheoriNcalframework!  READING COMPREHENSION

–  Depends on linguistic knowledge related to: •  Syntax •  Text structure •  Vocabulary - deep knowledge of a

word •  Prior knowledge

!  Wordknowledgeiscentralinthesystemsinvolvedinreadingcomprehension(PerfeqandStafura,2014)

!  But, beyond these linguistics facts, are there other factors at play?

Knowledgeforaword(NaNon2001)

Underlayingknowledge

Form

speaking

wriNng

morphems

meaning

Formandmeaning

Concepts

AssociaNons

Use

Grammar

CollocaNons

Constraint

Andinferencing! InferencingisgoingbeyondtheexplicitinformaNoninthetext.

!  Forinferencing,weshouldacNvateourpriorknowledge,linkinformaNon

Toinfer

!  WemustfirsthaveagoodlexicalrepresentaNon(Perfeq2007)– PhonologicalrepresentaNon,– OrthographicrepresentaNon– SemanNcinformaNon

!  Whilereading,lexicalrepresentaNonisacNvateddependingonthecontext– Whenreadingawellknownword=richsemanNcrepresentaNon

Context

!  Poorreadersunderperformedinmakinginferencesinreadingcomprehensiontests(CainetOakhill1999).

!  Inferencesarerelatedtopriorknowledge;themorebackgroundknowledgelinkedtothetextcontentthatanindividualhas,theeasieritisforhim/hertomakeinferences

!  ANon-naNvelearners’lackofvocabularyaffectsreadingcomprehension

!  Both,Non-NaNve(NN)andLearningDisabiliNes(LD)studentsdemonstratereadingcomprehensionproblems

!  Thelinksbetweentheabilitytoinferandreadingcomprehensionweredemonstrated(YuilletOakhill1991,CainetOakhill1999)

L2andinferencing

! Weakreadershavedifficultymakinginferencestounderstandatext(CainetOakhill1999).

!  ThequalityoftheL2lexicalrepresentaNoninfluencestheirabilitytomakeinferences(Cain2010)

Typesofinferencesnounanimityabouttherange

! Text-connec?ngorCoherenceinferences(Bowe-Crane&Snowling,2005)(Cain&Oakhill(1999)

!  Gap-fillingorElaboraNvesinferences(Bowe-Crane&Snowling,2005)(Cain&Oakhill(1999)

!  Localinferences:(coherence)(KyleneBeers,2003)!  Globalinferences:covertthewholetext(KyleneBeers,

2003)

! Whilereading(online)(Grasseretal1994;Longetal1996)! Awerreading(offline)(Grasseretal1994;Longetal1996)

ResearchQuesNon

!  AredifficulNesinmakinginferencesthesameforNNandLDstudents?

!  DoesBoysandgirlshavesamescores?

Method! Students:(n=580)(grade3tograde6)aiendingFrench

schoolsinMontréalaera.–  386L1-NormalAchiever–  152L2-NormalAchiever–  42L1-LearningDisabiliNes

!   Test–  NarraNvetext–  InferencesquesNons

! Procedure–  GrouptaskintheirclassroomwithotherlinguisNctasks-textavalaibleforansweringquesNons.

B.Readingcomprehensiontask

!  GroupnarraNvetextreading! InferencingquesNons

C.Othertasks

!  C-Test! WriNngproducNon! Understandingsynonymstask!  ComprehensionofidiomaNcphrasetask

CorrelaNonsbetweenreadingcomprehensionandothertasks

! Externvaliditywithothertasks:highcorrelaNonswithreadingcomprehension:– C-test(r=0,341atp=.000),– WriNngproducNon(r=0,443atp=.000),-  Understandingsynonymstask(r=0,500atp=.000),-  ComprehensionofidiomaNcphrasetask(r=0,450atp=.000);

Results

!  NormalL1>NormalL2>LearningDisabiliNes•  NormalL1andLD(F(1,427=39,975p=0,000)•  NormalL1andNormalL2(F1,517=16,358p=0,00)

020406080100120140

3rd 4th 5th 6th

N-L1N-L2LD

ANOVAshowedsignificantdifferencesbetweengradesF(4,579)=44,643p=0,000

QuesNonsclassificaNon! AccordingtoCain&Oakhill(1999),wegrouped

inferencesin2types:–  Gap-fillinginferences:integraNonofgeneralknowledgewithinformaNonprovidedinthetext.(BakerandStein’s1981terminology):Q1-Q2-Q3

–  Text-connecNnginferences:mappinganinstanceofanounspecificnountoalaterspecificreferent.(BakerandStein’s1981terminology)Q5-Q6b-Q7b-Q8-Q9–Q10-Q11

! LiieralinformaNon–  Answersisexplicitlyinthetext-Q4-Q6a-Q7a-Q12

!   SummarizingabiliNes–  FindaNtleforthetext-Q13

TextconnecNngbygrade-

F(3,579)=7,919p=0,000

TextConnecNng-L1(notclear)

F(1,579)=6,073p<0,014MeanL1=115,45andMeanL2=98,9

L1>L2

Text-connecNng-learningdisabiliNes(32subjects)

F(1,579)=12,958p=0,000

LD students:

Grade N

3 14

4 5

5 3

6 10

Fewstudents

N>LD

TextConnecNng-Gender

F(2,579)=6,855p<0,001

Girls>Boys

Gapfillingbygrade

F(3,579)=15,464p=0,000

GapfillingbyL1

F(1,579)=12,364p=0,000

L2>L1

DifferencesforLearningdisabiliNes

F(1,579)=25,233p=0,000

N>LD

Differencesbygender

F(2,579)=3,327p<0,037

Gilrs>Boys

Literalbygrade

F(3,579)=11,756p=0,000

LiteralL1

F(1,579)=9,706p<0,002

L2>L1

LiteralLearningDisabiliNes

F(1,579)=25,742p=0,000

N>LD

Literalbygender

F(1,579)=4,849p<0,008

Gilrs>Boys

Discussion

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

3rd 4th 5th 6th

text connectingliteralgap filling

TextconnecNng<literal<gapfilling

L1vsL2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

3rdL1

3rdL2

4thL1

4thL2

5thL1

5thL2

6thL1

6thL2


Forboth:textconnecNng<literal<gapfilling

NormalachievervsLD

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

3rdN

3rdLD

4thN

4thLD

5thN

5thLD

6thN

6thLD


Ingrade3andgrade4LDaredifferentfromNormalachieverfewstudentscouldexplainthedifferences

GenderG=girlsB=boys

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

3rdG

3rdB

4thG

4thB

5thG

5thB

6thG

6thB


TextconnecNng<literal<gapfillingGilrs>Boys

Differencesbygender

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

3rd 4th 5th 6th Global

girls

boys

N=581

F(2,579)=7,366p<0,001

Discussion! Daneman1988andPerfeq1994proposelexicalknowledgeisrelatedtoreadingabilityintwodifferentways:– Richness– Speedofaccess

!  SpeedofaccessseemstobemoreimportantwithourpopulaNon:L2>L1>LD

Discussion

Presentstudy!   TextconnecNng<literal<gap

filling !   FantasynarraNve!   Lessskilledreaderspooreratall

typesofinferencing!   Poorcomprehendersalwaysthe

weakest

!   Strategychoicemightbeplayingakeyrole

Cain&Oakhill(1999)!   Gap-filling<literal<text-

connecNng!   RealisNcnarraNve!   Lessskilledreaderspooreratall

typesofinferencing!   Poorcomprehenderswere

weakeringap-fillingthantheothergroups

!   Strategychoicemightbeplayingakeyrole

Discussion

!  Cain&Oakhill(1999)showedpoorcomprehendersimprovedtheirtext-connecNnginferenceswhentheycouldlookbackatthetext.Inthepresentstudy,asinYull&Oakhill(1988),evenwhenthetextpresentless-skilledcomprehenderswerepoorer.

!  Bower-Crane&Snowling(2005)havedemonstratedthat“differentreadingteststapdifferenttypesofinferencingskills”

Discussion

!  Ourfindingssuggestthatgenderdifferencesaresignificant

!  OurfindingsaddtoexistantevidencethatboyshavemoredifficulNeswithreadingcomprehension(PISA,2009,PIRLS,2011)

ImplicaNons

!  Training– Alltypesofinferencing:gap-filling,literal,text-connecNngwithdifferentkindofnarraNvetexts.

– SystemaNcworktobuildlexicalknowledgeinL2andLDchildren

! Research– NeedmoreexploraNonofdifferencesbetweengirlsandboys.

ImplicaNons

! Teach:– gapfilling1st,–  literal2nd,–  textconnecNng3rd

! LikeCainandOakhill(1999),weobserveddifficulNesinmakinginferencesforLD.Traininginmakinginferencescouldbehelpfullforthem.

Explicitteaching

!  Explicitteachingofreadingcomprehensionstrategy:sizeeffect=1.18(Bissonneie,Richard&Gauthier2010)mega-analysis

Pearson et Gallagher (1983) The instruction or reading comprehension

Traininginferences!  McGeeandJohnson(2003)didinferencetrainingbythesesteps:–  Lexicaltraining:explainedmeaningofspecificwords– QuesNongeneraNon:pupilsgeneratedtheirownquesNonsfromthetext

–  PredicNon:studentsguessedthemissingsegmentsbyinference

! Theyconcludethisisaready-madeinferencetrainingbecausetheyhadagreatsucces(student6-10yimproveover17monthsinNealeAnalysisofreadingAbilitytest)

Traininginferences

! Elbro&Iversen(2013)trained16Grade6classes,236parNcipantsfor8lessonsof30minutesintext-filling,explicitteaching:–  1.pre-filledorganizers–  2.whenstudentsfamilar,theyfilledinthebox–  3.last2sessions,theyreadthetextandansweredinferencesquesNonswithoutthesupportoforganizers

•  Theyfound:1)theyimprovedabilitytomakegap-fillinginferences:effectsize0.92;•  2)Trainingwasassociatedwithasignificantadvanceinreadingcomprehension

Conclusion

!   LimitaNons:–  fewLDsubjects

!  NormalL1>L2>LD–  ThespeedofaccesstovocabularyforLDandthelackofstrategiescouldexplaindifferences,ascouldtheabilitytousegeneralknowledgetointerpretatext

!   TextconnecNng<Literal<Gapfillingforallstudents–  LDarepooreronalltypes

.

GivespecialaienNontoLD&L2boysteachtheminferencingandsummarizaNon

strategies

THANKSFORYOURATTENTION!

[email protected]

Références!   [1]Kintsch,W.&VanDijk,T.A.(1978).Towardamodeloftextcomprehensionand

producNon.PsychologicalReview,85(5),363-394.!   [2]Kintsch,W.(1988).TheRoleofKnowledgeinDiscourseComprehensionConstrucNon-IntegraNon

Model.PsychologicalReview,95,163-182.!   [3]Perfeq,C.StafuraJ.(2014),WordKnowledgeinaTheoryofReadingComprehension,ScienNficStudy

ofReading,Routledge,vol18,no1,22-33.!   [4]NaNonK.(2001),ReadingandLanguageinChildren:ExposinghiddendeficitsPsychologist.14:238-242.!   [5]

Perfeq,C.A.(2007).ReadingAbility:LexicalQualitytoComprehension.ScienNficStudiesofReading,11(4),357-383.

!   [6]Cain,K.Oakhill,J.V.(1999),InferenceMakingAbilityanditsRelaNontoComprehensionFailureinYoungChildren,ReadingandWriNng:AnInterdisciplinaryJournal11:489–503.

!   [7]Cain,K.(2010),ReadingDevelopmentandDifficulNes,BriNshPsychologicalSocietyandBlackwellPublishing

!   [8]Yuill,N.,&Oakhill,J.(1991).Children’sProblemsinTextComprehension:AnExperimentalInvesNgaNon.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

!   [9]Baker,L.Stein,N.(1981),TheDevelopmentofProseComprehensionSkills.InC.M.Santa&B.L.Hayes(eds.),Children’sProseComprehension:ResearchandPracNce;Newark,DE:InternaNonalReadingAssociaNon(pp.7–43).

!   [10]Cain,K.Oakhill,J.(2014).ReadingComprehensionandVocabulary:IsVocabularymoreImportantforSomeAspectsofComprehension?.L’Annéepsychologique,114,pp647-662.

!  

References[11]Klecker,B.M.(2006).TheGenderGapinNAEPFourth-,Eighth-,andTwelwh-GradeReadingScoresAcrossYears.ReadingImprovement,43(1),50-56.[12]OECD.(2010b).PISA2009Results:LearningtoLearn–StudentEngagement,StrategiesandPracNces(Vol.3).Paris:[13]Chuy,M.,&Nitulescu,R.(2013).PISA2009:ExplainingtheGenderGapinReadingthroughReadingEngagementandApproachestoLearning.Researchpaper.Toronto:CouncilofMinistersofEducaNon,Canada(CMEC)andHumanResourcesandSkillsDevelopmentCanada(HRSDC).[14]Yuill,N.M.etOakhill,J.V.(1988).EffectsofInferenceAwarenessTrainingonPoorReadingComprehension.AppliedCogniNvePsychology,2(1),33-45.[15]Bowyer-Crane,C.,&Snowling,M.J.(2005).AssessingChildren'sInferenceGeneraNon:WhatDoTestsofReadingComprehensionMeasure?.BriNshJournalofEducaNonalPsychology,75(Pt2),189-201.[16]Bissonneie,S.,Richard,M.,Gauthier,C.&Bouchard,C.(2010).Quellessontlesstratégiesd’enseignementefficacesfavorisantlesapprenNssagesfondamentauxauprèsdesélèvesendifficultédeniveauélémentaire?Résultatsd’uneméga-analyse.Revuederechercheappliquéesurl’apprenNssage,3(1),1-35.[17]McGee,A.Johnson,H.(2003)TheEffectofInferenceTrainingonSkilledandLessSkilledComprehenders,EducaNonalPsychology,Vol,23,No.1,2003.[18]Elbro,C.Buch-Iversen,I.(2013)AcNvaNonofBackgroundKnowledgeforInferenceMaking:EffectsonReadingComprehension.ScienNficStudiesofReading,17:435-452,2013.[19]Graham,S.Harris,K.(2010)InstrucNonandAssessmentforStrugglingWritersP.171-172andPerinetGraham2012inMoatetal2012).

reading comprehension and inferences: comparison of ... · kintsch et van dijck (1978) and kintsch...

Documents