Dos de las estrategias de la Enseñanza Recíproca más eficaces en la mejora de la comprensión lectora (Rosenshiney Meister, 1994) fueron examinadas en niños de 3° y 4° de primaria. Así, 27 fueron instruidos en Resumen, 28 en Formulación de Preguntas y 51 sirvieron como grupo comparación. En textos de estructura clara, los grupos entrenados obtuvieron mejores resultados que el grupo comparación; y en textos de estructura poco clara el grupo preguntas logró mejores resultados que el grupo comparación. Los resultados apoyan la eficacia de ambas estrategias instruidas de forma aislada y se suman a numerosos estudios sobre la posibilidad de instruir en estrategias metacognitivas desde edades tempranas. Finalmente, las implicaciones educativas para la enseñanza de la comprensión lectora son discutidas. El apéndice contiene un texto elaborado para el studio.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlliendeF.CondemarínM.MilicicN. (1991). Prueba CLP. Prueba de comprensión lectora de complejidad lingüística progresiva. Madrid: CEPE.
2.
AlfassiM. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension in high school students in remedial reading classes. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 309–332.
3.
AndersonT. H.ArmbrusterB. B. (1986). Readable textbooks or selecting a textbook is not like buying a pair of shoes. EnOrasanuJ. (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 159–162). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
BaumannJ. F. (1984). The effectiveness of a direct instruction paradigm for teaching main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 93–115.
5.
Brand-GruwellS. B.AarnoutseC. A. J.VanDENBossK. P. (1998). Improving text comprehension strategies in reading and listening settings. Learning and Instruction, 8, 63–81.
6.
BouffardT.VezeauC., (1998). The developing self-system and self-regulation of primary school children. EnFerrariM. D.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Self-awareness: Its nature and development (pp. 246–272). Nueva York: Guilford Press.
7.
BrownA. L.DayJ. D.JonesR. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 54, 968–979.
8.
BrownA. L.PalincsarA. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge adquisition. EnResnickL. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
BrownR.PressleyM.Van MeterP.SchuderT. (1996). A quasi-experimetal validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18–37.
10.
CainK.OakhillJ.BryantP. (2000). Phonological skills and comprehension failure: A test of the phonological processing deficit hypothesis. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 13, 31–56.
11.
CarreirasM.GutiérrezM. (1989). Reconocimiento de información principal y secundaria en el aprendizaje de textos: hipótesis atencional y representacional. Cognitiva, 2, 55–74.
12.
CraikF.LockhartR. S. (1972). Levels of processing: Frame-work for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
13.
CuetosF.RodríguezB.RuanoE. (1996). PROLEC. Batería de evaluación de los procesos lectores.Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
14.
CurrieL. A. (1999). “Mr. Homunculus the reading detective”. A cognitive approach to improving reading comprehension. Educational and Child Psychology, 16, 37–42.
15.
DaveyB.McbrideS. (1986). Effects of question-generation training on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 256–262.
16.
De VegaM.CuetosF.DomínguezA.EstevézA. (1999). Diferencias individuales en lectura y comprensión. Ende VegaM.CuetosF. (Eds.), Psicolingüística del español (pp. 231–271). Valladolid: Trotta.
17.
DurkinD. (1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 518–544.
18.
GarnerR. (1982). Efficient text summarization: Costs and benefits. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 275–279.
19.
HallerE. P.ChildD. A.WalbergH. J. (1988). Can comprehension be taught? A quantitative synthesis of metacognitive studies. Educational Researcher, 18, 5–8.
20.
KintschW. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
21.
KintschW. (1994). The psychology of discourse processing. EnGernsbacherM. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 721–739). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
22.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
KintschW.DijkVA. (1978). Toward a model of discourse comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
24.
LevinJ. R. (1973). Inducing comprehension in poor readers: A test of a recent model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 19–24.
25.
MakiR. H.SwettS. (1987). Metamemory for narrative text. Memory and Cognition, 15, 72–83.
26.
MelothM. S. (1990). Changes in poor readers: Knowledge of cognition and the association of knowledge of cognition with regulation of cognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 792–798.
27.
MeyerB.PoonL. W. (2001). Effects of structure training and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 141–159.
28.
OakhillJ. V. (1994). Individual differences in children's text comprehension. EnGernsbacherM. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 821–848). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
29.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-monitoring and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
30.
PressleyM.AfflerbachP. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
PressleyM.JohnsonC. J.SymonsS.McgoldrickJ. A.KuritaJ. A. (1989). Strategies that improve children's comprehension of text. Elementary School Journal, 90, 3–32.
32.
ReynoldsP. L.SymonsS. (2001). Motivational variables and children's text search. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 14–22.
33.
RosenshineB.MeisterC. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479–530.
34.
RosenshineB.MeisterC.ChapmanS. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.
35.
SadoskiM. (1983). An exploratory study of the relationships between the reported imagery and the comprehension and recall of a story. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 110–123.
36.
SánchezE. (1989). Procedimientos para instruir en la comprensión de textos.Madrid: CIDE.
37.
SánchezE. (1998). Comprensión y redacción de textos.Barcelona: Edebé.
38.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM.LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities. A meta-analysis of treatmen outcomes.Nueva York: Guilford.
39.
Valle-ArroyoF. (1989). Errores en lectura y escritura: un modelo dual. Cognitiva, 2, 35–63.
40.
Van DijkT. A.KintschW. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension.Nueva York: Academic Press.
41.
Vidal-AbarcaE. (2000). Las dificultades de comprensión II: Diagnóstico y tratamiento. EnMirandaA.Vidal-AbarcaE.SorianoM. (Eds.), Evaluación e intervención psicoeducativa en dificultades de aprendizaje (pp. 157–195). Madrid: Pirámide.
42.
WinogradP. N. (1985). Dificultades de estrategia en el resumen de textos.Infancia y Aprendizaje, 31–32, 67–87.
43.
WongB. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A review. Review of Educational Research, 55, 227–268.
