Have you ever found it difficult to read something because you lack knowledge on the topic? We investigated this phenomenon with a sample of 3,534 high school students who took a background-knowledge test before working on a reading-comprehension test on the topic of ecology. Broken-line regression revealed a knowledge threshold: Below the threshold, the relationship between comprehension and knowledge was weak (β = 0.18), but above the threshold, a strong and positive relation emerged (β = 0.81). Further analyses indicated that certain topically relevant words (e.g., ecosystem, habitat) were more important to know than others when predicting the threshold, and these keywords could be identified using natural-language-processing techniques. Collectively, these results may help identify who is likely to have a problem comprehending information on a specific topic and, to some extent, what knowledge is likely required to comprehend information on that topic.
AhmedY.FrancisD. J.YorkM.FletcherJ. M.BarnesM.KuleszP. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44, 68–82.
3.
AlexanderP. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In MaehrM. L.PintrichP. R. (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 213–250). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
4.
AlexanderP. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14.
5.
AlexanderP. A.JettonT. L.KulikowichJ. M. (1995). Interrelationship of knowledge, interest, and recall: Assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 559–575.
6.
CainK.OakhillJ. V.BarnesM. A.BryantP. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29, 850–859.
7.
CookA. E.O’BrienE. J. (2014). Knowledge activation, integration, and validation during narrative text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 51, 26–49.
8.
CromleyJ. G.AzevedoR. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325.
9.
DeaneP. (2012). NLP methods for supporting vocabulary analysis. In SabatiniJ. P.O’ReillyT.AlbroE. R. (Eds.), Reaching an understanding: Innovations in how we view reading assessment (pp. 117–144). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
10.
DuncanL. G.CastroS. L.DefiorS.SeymourP. H.BaillieS.LeybaertJ.. . . PorpodasC. D. (2013). Phonological development in relation to native language and literacy: Variations on a theme in six alphabetic orthographies. Cognition, 127, 398–419.
11.
ElbroC.Buch-IversenI. (2013). Activation of background knowledge for inference making: Effects on reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 435–452.
12.
GoughP. B.HooverW. A.PetersonC. L. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In CornoldiC.OakhillJ. (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 1–13). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
Hsueh-ChaoM. H.NationP. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403–430.
14.
JuulH.PoulsenM.ElbroC. (2014). Separating speed from accuracy in beginning reading development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 1096–1106.
15.
KincaidJ. P.FishburneR. P.Jr.RogersR. L.ChissomB. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Orlando, FL: Institute for Simulation and Training.
16.
KintschW. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In RuddellR. B.UnrauN. J. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (Vol. 5, pp. 1270–1328). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
17.
LauferB. (1989). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In LaurénC.NordmanM. (Eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines (pp. 316–323). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
18.
LauferB. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In ArnaudP. J. L.BéjointH. (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 126–132). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
19.
McNamaraD. S.O’ReillyT. (2010). Theories of comprehension skill: Knowledge and strategies versus capacity and suppression. In ColumbusA. M. (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. 62, pp. 113–136). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
20.
MuggeoV. M. (2008). Segmented: An R package to fit regression models with broken-line relationships. R News, 8(1), 20–25.
21.
MyersJ. L.O’BrienE. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131–157.
22.
O’ReillyT.WeeksJ.SabatiniJ.HaldermanL.SteinbergJ. (2014). Designing reading comprehension assessments for reading interventions: How a theoretically motivated assessment can serve as an outcome measure. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 403–424.
23.
OzuruY.DempseyK.McNamaraD. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228–242.
24.
SchmittN.JiangX.GrabeW. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 26–43.
25.
ShapiroA. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 159–189.
26.
SheehanK. M.KostinI.NapolitanoD.FlorM. (2014). The TextEvaluator tool: Helping teachers and test developers select texts for use in instruction and assessment. The Elementary School Journal, 115, 184–209.
27.
WangZ.SabatiniJ.O’ReillyT.WeeksJ. (2019). Decoding and reading comprehension: A test of the decoding threshold hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 387–401. doi:10.1037/edu0000302
