The Effects of Readers' Misconceptions on Comprehension of Scientific Text

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of readers' misconceptions on text compre- hension. College students with misconceptions in science were asked to read and recall a text that contradicted their misconceptions. Students with no misconceptions served as the control group. Both online (think-aloud, reading times) and offline (recall) measures were obtained. The results suggest that readers' misconceptions often do not affect the online processes themselves but do influence the content of those processes and, consequently, the offline memory representation for the text after reading is completed. Much of the learning that takes place in and out of schools is based on successful comprehension of texts. Readers actively construct a memory representation of the text that critically de- pends on their interpretation in light of prior knowledge. The success of the comprehension process depends on the integration of readers' prior knowledge with textual information (Goldman & Bisanz, 2002; Kintsch, 1988, 1998; van den Broek, Virtue, Ever- son, Tzeng, & Sung, 2002). The powerful effects of readers' prior knowledge in text comprehension have been documented early on (Bartlett, 1932), resulting in a large body of literature indicating that prior knowledge increases memory of texts for both young and adult readers (e.g., Chiesi, Spilich, & Voss, 1979; Dochy, Segers, & Buehl, 1999; Means & Voss, 1985; Recht & Leslie, 1988). The role of inaccurate prior knowledge, however, has received far less attention despite the fact that readers with inaccurate knowledge are the default case rather than the exception (Driver, Squires, Rushworth, & Wood-Robinson, 1994). Our aim in this article is to explore the effects of inaccurate prior knowledge on text compre- hension, focusing both on the final product of reading a text and on the actual processes that take place during reading and lead to this product. To assess the effects of prior knowledge on text comprehension, one must consider both offline products and online processes (Just

[1]  J. Novak,et al.  An assessment of children's concepts of the earth utilizing structured interviews , 1976 .

[2]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence , 1996 .

[3]  Mark St. John,et al.  Independent Access to World Knowledge and Newly Learned Facts , 1990 .

[4]  W. Kintsch.  The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. , 1988, Psychological review.

[5]  Margaret G. McKeown,et al.  Revising Social Studies Text from a Text-Processing Perspective: Evidence of Improved Comprehensibility. , 1991 .

[6]  L. Baker,et al.  Comprehension Monitoring: Identifying and Coping with Text Confusions1 , 1979 .

[7]  S. Carey.  Conceptual Change in Childhood , 1985 .

[8]  A. King.  Guiding Knowledge Construction in the Classroom: Effects of Teaching Children How to Question and How to Explain , 1994 .

[9]  William F. Brewer,et al.  Explanation in Scientists and Children , 1998, Minds and Machines.

[10]  David N. Rapp,et al.  The influence of reader’s prior knowledge on text comprehension and learning from text , 2004 .

[11]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Mental models of electricity , 1999 .

[12]  A. Graesser,et al.  Handbook of discourse processes , 2003 .

[13]  Jerome L. Myers,et al.  Accessing the discourse representation during reading , 1998 .

[14]  G. R. Potts,et al.  Incorporating new information into existing world knowledge , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  The influence of language proficiency and comprehension skill on situation‐model construction , 1996 .

[16]  Stella Vosniadou,et al.  Mental Models of the Day/Night Cycle , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[17]  Richard J. Gerrig,et al.  Readers' Trait-Based Models of Characters in Narrative Comprehension☆ , 2001 .

[18]  Randall W. Engle,et al.  Working Memory and Comprehension , 2004 .

[19]  P. Broek,et al.  The Landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of memory representation. , 1999 .

[20]  Cynthia R. Hynd,et al.  Effects of Prior Knowledge Activation Modes and Text Structure on Nonscience Majors’ Comprehension of Physics , 1989 .

[21]  A. Glenberg,et al.  The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension , 1982 .

[22]  R. Driver,et al.  Making sense of secondary science , 1994 .

[23]  George J. Spilich,et al.  Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. , 1979 .

[24]  P. David Pearson,et al.  Methods of Literacy Research : The Methodology Chapters From the Handbook of Reading Research, Volume III , 2001 .

[25]  T. Trabasso,et al.  Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence through on‐line inferences and mental operations in working memory , 1993 .

[26]  Tracy Linderholm,et al.  Fluctuations in the Availability of Information During Reading: Capturing Cognitive Processes Using the Landscape Model , 2004, Discourse Processes.

[27]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Discourse comprehension : essays in honor of Walter Kintsch , 1996 .

[28]  Leo G. M. Noordman,et al.  Readers' knowledge and the control of inferences in reading , 1992 .

[29]  James F. Voss,et al.  Star Wars: A developmental study of expert and novice knowledge structures , 1985 .

[30]  G. R. Potts,et al.  Incorporation versus compartmentalization in memory for discourse , 1985 .

[31]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[32]  José Otero.  12. Noticing and fixing difficulties while understanding science texts , 2002 .

[33]  H. Oostendorp,et al.  The Construction of Mental Representations During Reading , 1998 .

[34]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  The Construction of Causal Inferences While Reading Expository Texts on Science and Technology , 1998 .

[35]  Katherine Maria,et al.  Learning from texts that refute the reader's prior knowledge , 1987 .

[36]  Lauren Leslie,et al.  Effect of Prior Knowledge on Good and Poor Readers' Memory of Text. , 1988 .

[37]  Barbara J. Guzzetti,et al.  Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education , 1993 .

[38]  David N. Perkins,et al.  Patterns of Misunderstanding: An Integrative Model for Science, Math, and Programming , 1988 .

[39]  Irene-Anna N. Diakidoy,et al.  Facilitating conceptual change in astronomy: a comparison of the effectiveness of two instructional approaches , 2001 .

[40]  M. Segers,et al.  The Relation Between Assessment Practices and Outcomes of Studies: The Case of Research on Prior Knowledge , 1999 .

[41]  Susan R. Goldman,et al.  2. Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: implications for understanding and learning processes , 2002 .

[42]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  A three-pronged method for studying inference generation in literary text , 1991 .

[43]  Susan R. Goldman,et al.  Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation , 1998 .

[44]  Irene-Anna N. Diakidoy,et al.  Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change , 2003 .

[45]  Amy M. Shapiro,et al.  How Including Prior Knowledge As a Subject Variable May Change Outcomes of Learning Research , 2004 .

[46]  Irene-Anna N. Diakidoy,et al.  Erratum to: Conceptual change in astronomy: Models of the earth and of the day/night cycle in American-Indian children , 1997 .

[47]  James M. Royer,et al.  The Assessment of Levels of Domain Expertise While Reading , 1996 .

[48]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition , 1998 .

[49]  Janice A. Dole,et al.  READERS, TEXTS AND CONCEPTUAL CHANGE LEARNING , 2000 .

[50]  Robert H. Logie,et al.  Working Memory and Thinking: Current Issues In Thinking And Reasoning , 1998 .

[51]  Robert Pritchard,et al.  The Effects of Cultural Schemata on Reading Processing Strategies. , 1990 .

[52]  Kirsten Risden,et al.  Inferential Questioning: Effects on Comprehension of Narrative Texts as a Function of Grade and Timing , 2001 .

[53]  Rolf A. Zwaan.  Five dimensions of narrative comprehension: The event-indexing model. , 1999 .

[54]  Donna E. Alvermann,et al.  Prior Knowledge Activation and the Comprehension of Compatible and Incompatible Text. , 1985 .

[55]  Joseph P. Magliano,et al.  Assessing Reading Skill With a Think-Aloud Procedure and Latent Semantic Analysis , 2003 .

[56]  José A. León,et al.  The Influence of Prior Knowledge on the Time Course of Clinical Diagnosis Inferences: A Comparison of Experts and Novices , 2001 .

[57]  M. Daneman,et al.  A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component processes of reading comprehension , 2001 .

[58]  Robert A. Wilson,et al.  Explanation and Cognition , 2000 .

[59]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  The Influence of Knowledge-Based Inferences on The Reading Time of Expository Text , 1990 .

[60]  W. Kintsch.  Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: Why anyone would read a story anyway , 1980 .

[61]  J. Peeck,et al.  Effect of mobilizing prior knowledge on learning from text. , 1982 .

[62]  Michael Pressley,et al.  What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of , 2000 .

[63]  Bruce K. Britton,et al.  Instructional texts rewritten by five expert teams: Revisions and retention improvements. , 1989 .

[64]  M. Chi,et al.  Eliciting Self‐Explanations Improves Understanding , 1994 .

[65]  Peter Afflerbach,et al.  Verbal Protocols of Reading: The Nature of Constructively Responsive Reading , 1996 .

[66]  Stellan Ohlsson.  5. Generating and understanding qualitative explanations , 2002 .

[67]  Matthew W. Lewis,et al.  Self-Explonations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[68]  Michael Pressley,et al.  Use of elaborative interrogation to help students acquire information consistent with prior knowledge and information inconsistent with prior knowledge , 1994 .

[69]  E. J. O'Brien,et al.  Maintaining global coherence during reading , 1994 .

[70]  Fred N. Finley,et al.  Variable uses of alternative conceptions: A case study in current electricity , 1992 .

[71]  Peter Afflerbach,et al.  Verbal Reports and Protocol Analysis , 2001 .

[72]  E. J. O'Brien,et al.  Strategies for resolving coherence breaks in reading , 1995 .

[73]  R. Nata.  Progress in Education , 1940, Nature.

[74]  B. K. Britton,et al.  Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. , 1991 .

[75]  D. Gentner,et al.  Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity , 1982 .

[76]  Michelle Gaddy Everson,et al.  Effects of Causal Text Revisions on More- and Less-Skilled Readers' Comprehension of Easy and Difficult Texts , 2000 .

[77]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Toward a model of text comprehension and production. , 1978 .

[78]  E. J. O'Brien,et al.  Sources of coherence in reading , 1995 .

[79]  M A Just,et al.  A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. , 1980, Psychological review.

[80]  W. Schneider,et al.  Domain-Specific Knowledge and Memory Performance: A Comparison of High- and Low-Aptitude Children , 1989 .

[81]  P. David Pearson.  Handbook of reading research. , 1990 .

[82]  F. Bartlett,et al.  Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology , 1932 .

[83]  Linda Baker,et al.  Effects of Inconsistent Information on Text Processing: Evidence for Comprehension Monitoring. Technical Report No. 203. , 1981 .

[84]  D. McNamara.  SERT: Self-Explanation Reading Training , 2004 .

[85]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Images of electricity: how do novices and experts model electric current? , 1996 .

[86]  T. Trabasso,et al.  Modeling causal integration and availability of information during comprehension of narrative texts. , 1999 .

[87]  M. Y. Lipson,et al.  Learning New Information from Text: The Role of Prior Knowledge and Reading Ability , 1982 .

[88]  R. Osborne,et al.  Learning in science : the implications of children's science , 1985 .

[89]  M. van Daalen-Kapteijns,et al.  Situated regulation of science text processing , 2002 .

[90]  Jason E. Albrecht,et al.  Updating a mental model: maintaining both local and global coherence , 1993 .

[91]  Eduardo Vidal-Abarca Gámez,et al.  17. "Mining for meaning": cognitive effects of inserted questions in learning from scientific text , 2002 .

[92]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  How Subject-Matter Knowledge Affects Recall and Interest , 1994 .

[93]  Louis A. Bloomfield.  How Things Work: The Physics of Everyday Life , 1996 .

[94]  T. Trabasso,et al.  Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. , 1994 .

[95]  Donna E. Alvermann,et al.  Comprehension of Counterintuitive Science Text: Effects of Prior Knowledge and Text Structure , 1989 .

[96]  Robert F. Lorch,et al.  Understanding Reading Comprehension: Current and Future Contributions of Cognitive Science , 1997 .

[97]  W. Brewer,et al.  Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.