Processing of anaphoric devices in young skilled and less skilled comprehenders: Differences in metacognitive monitoring

Processing of anaphoric devices in young skilled and less skilled comprehenders: Differences in... This experiment investigated metacognitive monitoring in the processing of anaphors in 10–year-old skilled and less skilled comprehenders. Two tasks were used with expository texts. The direct self-evaluation task was carried out with consistent texts in which target anaphors were either repeated noun phrases or pronouns. Subjects had to read and to evaluate their own comprehension on a 6–point scale. After reading, subjects answered multiple-choice questions designed to test the processing of anaphors. In the inconsistency detection task, target anaphors were either repeated noun phrases or inconsistent noun phrases. Subjects had to read and detect inconsistencies. After reading, they answered multiple-choice questions. In both tasks, on-line measures (reading times for units containing target anaphors and for subsequent units, and look-backs) were collected in addition to off-line measures (ratings of comprehension, detection of inconsistencies and response to multiple-choice questions) in order to analyse indicators of implicit and explicit evaluation and revision activities. The results from the two tasks converged: less skilled comprehenders showed deficiencies in monitoring on measures of implicit and explicit evaluation and revision. Patterns of reading times revealed that less skilled comprehenders were sensitive to the difficulties in processing pronouns in the self-evaluation task and also sensitive to the lack of text cohesion in the inconsistency detection task. However, this sensitivity was weak and unable to trigger explicit activities. These results were interpreted in the framework of Karmiloff-Smith's (1986) model. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Reading and Writing Springer Journals

Processing of anaphoric devices in young skilled and less skilled comprehenders: Differences in metacognitive monitoring

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/processing-of-anaphoric-devices-in-young-skilled-and-less-skilled-1sAIBJr2U6
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Linguistics; Language and Literature; Psycholinguistics; Education, general; Neurology; Literacy
ISSN
0922-4777
eISSN
1573-0905
D.O.I.
10.1023/A:1007996502372
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This experiment investigated metacognitive monitoring in the processing of anaphors in 10–year-old skilled and less skilled comprehenders. Two tasks were used with expository texts. The direct self-evaluation task was carried out with consistent texts in which target anaphors were either repeated noun phrases or pronouns. Subjects had to read and to evaluate their own comprehension on a 6–point scale. After reading, subjects answered multiple-choice questions designed to test the processing of anaphors. In the inconsistency detection task, target anaphors were either repeated noun phrases or inconsistent noun phrases. Subjects had to read and detect inconsistencies. After reading, they answered multiple-choice questions. In both tasks, on-line measures (reading times for units containing target anaphors and for subsequent units, and look-backs) were collected in addition to off-line measures (ratings of comprehension, detection of inconsistencies and response to multiple-choice questions) in order to analyse indicators of implicit and explicit evaluation and revision activities. The results from the two tasks converged: less skilled comprehenders showed deficiencies in monitoring on measures of implicit and explicit evaluation and revision. Patterns of reading times revealed that less skilled comprehenders were sensitive to the difficulties in processing pronouns in the self-evaluation task and also sensitive to the lack of text cohesion in the inconsistency detection task. However, this sensitivity was weak and unable to trigger explicit activities. These results were interpreted in the framework of Karmiloff-Smith's (1986) model.

Journal

Reading and WritingSpringer Journals

Published: Sep 30, 2004

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off