Scaffolding has been shown to facilitate students’ text comprehension and task performance. Yet less is known about the necessity of scaffolding for competent students reading unfamiliar content. To explore that question, we investigated the effects of two knowledge scaffolding techniques (i.e., mobilization and concept mapping) versus control on undergraduates’ comprehension overall and by question type. The 118 undergraduates were randomly assigned to a condition and read a text about cellular biology. Results indicated a significant effect of scaffolding on students’ comprehension after controlling for prior knowledge. Follow-up analyses for overall comprehension demonstrated that the concept mapping group outperformed the mobilization and control groups, and the mobilization group outperformed the control group. These results suggest that competent readers benefit from scaffolding when reading unfamiliar content.
AlexanderP. A. (2005). The path to competence: A lifespan developmental perspective on reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 37, 413–436.
2.
AlexanderP. A.DinsmoreD. L.FoxE.GrossnickleE. M.LoughlinS. M.MaggioniL.…WintersF. I. (2011). Higher order thinking and knowledge: Domain-general and domain-specific trends and future directions. In SchrawG.RobinsonD. H. (Eds.), Assessment of higher order thinking skills, (pp. 47–88). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
3.
AlexanderP.A.The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory. (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47, 259–280.
4.
AlvermannD. E.SmithL. C.ReadenceJ. E. (1985). Prior knowledge and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 420–436.
5.
BoekaertsM. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161–186.
6.
BransfordJ. D.JohnsonM. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.
7.
DinsmoreD. L.HattanC.ListA (2018). A meta-analysis of strategy use and performance in the model of domain learning. In FivesH.DinsmoreD. L. (Eds.), The model of domain learning (pp. 37–55). New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
DochyF. J.AlexanderP. A. (1995). Mapping prior knowledge: A framework for discussion among researchers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 225–242.
9.
DochyF. J.SegersM.BuehlM. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69, 145–186.
10.
DukeN. K.PearsonP. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In FarstrupA. E.SamuelsS. J. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
11.
DuffyG. G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies. In BlockC. C.PressleyM. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 28–41). New York, NY: Guilford.
12.
FoxE.DinsmoreD. L.AlexanderP. A., (2010). Reading competence, interest, and reading goals in three gifted young adolescent readers. (Special issue on motivation and giftedness). High Ability Studies, 21, 165–178.
13.
FoxE.ParkinsonM. M. (2018). Domain explorations of the model of domain learning—Reading. In FivesH.DinsmoreD. L. (Eds.), The model of domain learning (pp. 89–107). New York, NY: Routledge.
14.
GoldmanS. R.BrittM. A.BrownW.CribbG.GeorgeM.GreenleafC.,…Project READI. (2017). Disciplinary literacy and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51, 219–246.
15.
GravesM. F.WattsS.GravesB. B. (1994). Essentials of classroom teaching: Elementary reading. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
16.
GurlittJ.RenklA. (2008). Are high-coherent concept maps better for prior knowledge activation? Differential effects of concept mapping tasks on high school vs. university students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 407–419.
17.
GurlittJ.RenklA. (2010). Prior knowledge activation: How different concept mapping tasks lead to substantial differences in cognitive processes, learning outcomes, and perceived self-efficacy. Instructional Science, 38, 417–433.
18.
HackerD. J. (1998). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In HackerD. J.DunloskyJ.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 165–192), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20.
KostonosD.van der WerfG. (2015). The effects of activating prior topic and metacognitive knowledge on text comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 264–275.
21.
LairdD. W.LampeP. D.JohnsonR. G. (2015, May). Cellular small talk. Scientific American, 312, 71–77.
22.
Machiels-BongaertsM.SchmidtH. G.BoshuizenH. P. A. (1995). The effect of prior knowledge activation on text recall: An investigation of two conflicting hypotheses. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 409–423.
23.
MoosD. C.AzevedoR. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 270–298.
NovakJ. D.GowinD. B. (1984). Concept mapping for meaningful learning. Learning how to learn (pp. 15–54). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
26.
PalinscarA. S. (2003). Collaborative approaches to comprehension instruction. In SweetA. P.SnowC. E. (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 99–114). New York, NY: Guilford.
27.
PalinscarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
28.
PeeckJ.van den BoschA. B.KreupelingW. J. (1982). Effect of mobilizing prior knowledge on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 771–777.
29.
PressleyM. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
30.
RupleyW. H.BlairT. R.NicholsW. D. (2009). Effective reading instruction for struggling readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 125–138.
31.
RogoffB. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
32.
SnowC. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
33.
VaccaR. T.VaccaJ. A. L. (2005). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum. Boston, MA: Pearson.
34.
van LoonM. H.de BruinA. B. H.van GogT.van MerriënboerJ. J. G. (2013). Activation of inaccurate prior knowledge affects primary-school students’ metacognitive judgments and calibration. Learning and Instruction, 24, 15–25.
35.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
WetzelsS. A.KesterL.van MerriënboerJ. J. (2011). Adapting prior knowledge activation: Mobilisation, perspective taking, and learners’ prior knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 16–21.
37.
Wharton-McDonaldR.PressleyM.HampstonJ. M. (1998). Literacy instruction in nine first-grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. Elementary School Journal, 99, 101–128.
38.
WoodD.BrunerJ. S.RossG (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
