For readers with misconceptions, the number of correct inferences generated during think-aloud reading predicts text recall¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In Experiment 1, think-aloud responses accounted for 18% of recall variance in the misconception group, with correct inferences a significant predictor (β = .37, p < .05); no model was significant for the nonmisconception group. → Kendeou 2007

Evidence¶

Kendeou 2007¶

Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193491

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Hierarchical multiple regression in Experiment 1 relating the seven think-aloud process categories to proportion of sentences recalled, per group. Correct inferences predicted recall for the misconception group only; bivariate correlations showed correct inferences related to conceptual change processes (r = .45) and recall (r = .42).

"The regression model for the think-aloud responses (second step), however, accounted for a significant 18% of the variance in text recall [F(7,68) 2.2, p .04]. Specifically, the number of correct inferences that occurred during the think-aloud phase strongly predicted the proportion of sentences recalled"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Inferencing — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• The frequency of associations produced during think-aloud reading predicts sentence reading times during silent reading — related
• Readers with misconceptions generate more incorrect and fewer correct knowledge-based inferences than readers without misconceptions, in both text structures — related
• Readers with misconceptions recall less textual information than readers without misconceptions, regardless of text structure — related
• Reader misconceptions inhibit comprehension; low-skill readers prefer prior knowledge over contradictory text information — related