Los lectores poco competentes tienen dificultades para evaluar su propia comprensión. El propósito de este trabajo es intentar definir los factores que contribuyen a este pobre control de la comprensión comparando lectores competentes y menos competentes de grado medio, mediante una tarea de comprensión de historias inconsistentes a las que falta una parte. Los lectores menos competentes eran significativamente peores en la tarea de identificar cuál era la historia inconsistente, colocar la hoja que faltaba y arreglar la historia. Esto parece ser debido a una dificultad en la integración del material del texto. Sin embargo, no se encontraron diferencias significativas en el recuerdo de la información crucial.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AugustD. L.Individual differences in the comprehension monitoring of inconsistencies in text. Manuscrito inédito, Stanford University, 1981.
2.
BakerL.«Comprehension monitoring: Identifying and coping with text confusions».Journal of Reading Behavior, 1979, 11, 363–374.
3.
BurmeisterL. A.Reading strategies for middle and secondary school teachers.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978.
4.
CalfeeR. C.CalfeeK. H.Reading, reading acquisition. Prepared for the Course Team, Deacon University Open Campues Program, School of Education, Maryborough, Victoria, Australia: Hedges & Bell Pty. Ltd., 1980.
5.
CanneyG.WinogradP.Schematic for reading and reading comprehension performance. (Tech. Rep. No. 120). Urbana: Universidad de Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 169 520), abril 1979.
6.
CapelliC. A.Factors affecting children's ability to evaluate their comprehension. Manuscrito inédito, Universidad de Stanford, 1982.
7.
CapelliC. A.MarkmanE. M.Children's sensitivity to incomprehensive material in written text. Manuscrito inédito, Universidad de Stanford, 1981.
8.
COMPREHENSIVE TEST OF BASIC SKILLS, LEVEL 2, FORM S. Monterrey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill, 1973.
9.
FlavellJ. H.SpeerJ. R.GreenF. L.AugustD. L.«The development of comprehension monitoring and knowledge about communication».Monographs of the Society for Reseach in Child Development, 1981, 46 (4, Serial No. 191).
10.
GarnerR.«Monitoring of passage inconsistency among poor comprehenders: A preliminary test of the “piecemeal processing” explanation».Journal of Educational Research, 1981, 74, 159–162.
HarrisP. L.KruithofA.TerwogtM. M.VisserT.«Children's detection of awareness of textual anomaly», Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1981, 31, 212–230.
13.
IronsmithM.WhitehurstG. J.«The development of listener abilities in communication: How children deal with ambiguous information».Child Development, 1978, 49, 348–352.
14.
MarkmanE. M.«Realizing that you don't understand: A preliminary investigation».Child Development, 1977, 48, 986–992.
15.
MarkmanE. M.«Realizing that you don't understand: Elementary school children's awareness of inconsistencies».Child Development, 1979, 50, 643–655.
16.
NisbettR. E.WilsonT. D.«Telling more than we know: Verbal reports of mental processes».Psychological Review, 1977, 34, 231–259.
17.
PattersonC. J.CosgroveJ. M.O'brienR. G.«Non-verbal indicants of comprehension and noncomprehension in children».Developmental Psychology, 1980, 16, 38–48.
18.
RavenJ. C.Coloured Progressive Matrices (Sets A, Ab, B).London: H. K. Lewis & Co., 1962.
19.
SteinN. L.TrabassoT.«What's in a story: An approach to comprehension and instruction». EnGlaserR. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of instruction (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1985.
20.
WinogradP.JohnsonP.Comprehension monitoring and the error detection paradigm (Tech. Rep. No. 153). Urbana: Universidad de Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 181 425), enero 1980.
