Multiple‐Text Comprehension and Evaluation: The Influence of Reading Goal, Belief Consistency, and Argument Type

IF 3.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Sylvia M. Savvidou, Irene‐Anna Diakidoy, Lucia Mason
{"title":"Multiple‐Text Comprehension and Evaluation: The Influence of Reading Goal, Belief Consistency, and Argument Type","authors":"Sylvia M. Savvidou, Irene‐Anna Diakidoy, Lucia Mason","doi":"10.1002/rrq.568","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present study examined how argument type (science based vs. personal case based), belief consistency (belief consistent vs. inconsistent) and reading goals (read to evaluate vs. read to learn) influence comprehension and trustworthiness evaluations for claim‐conflicting multiple texts. Undergraduates read four conflicting texts about the effects of vegan nutrition and completed four corresponding single‐text comprehension and trustworthiness tasks before completing a multiple‐text comprehension task. The results indicated better memory for personal case‐based texts that capitalized on everyday life experiences and emotions than science‐based texts in the multiple‐text comprehension task. Reading to evaluate benefitted memory only for the belief‐inconsistent personal text and contributed to lower trustworthiness ratings for all texts in comparison to reading to learn. The present study's findings highlight the importance of factors pertaining to argument quality, namely argument type, in comprehension and trustworthiness judgments.","PeriodicalId":48160,"journal":{"name":"Reading Research Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading Research Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.568","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present study examined how argument type (science based vs. personal case based), belief consistency (belief consistent vs. inconsistent) and reading goals (read to evaluate vs. read to learn) influence comprehension and trustworthiness evaluations for claim‐conflicting multiple texts. Undergraduates read four conflicting texts about the effects of vegan nutrition and completed four corresponding single‐text comprehension and trustworthiness tasks before completing a multiple‐text comprehension task. The results indicated better memory for personal case‐based texts that capitalized on everyday life experiences and emotions than science‐based texts in the multiple‐text comprehension task. Reading to evaluate benefitted memory only for the belief‐inconsistent personal text and contributed to lower trustworthiness ratings for all texts in comparison to reading to learn. The present study's findings highlight the importance of factors pertaining to argument quality, namely argument type, in comprehension and trustworthiness judgments.
多文本理解与评价:阅读目标、信念一致性和论证类型的影响
本研究考察了论证类型(基于科学的论证与基于个人案例的论证)、信念一致性(信念一致与信念不一致)和阅读目标(阅读评价与阅读学习)如何影响对声称冲突的多文本的理解和可信度评价。本科生阅读了四篇关于素食营养影响的相互冲突的文章,并在完成多篇文章理解任务之前完成了四个相应的单篇文章理解和可信度任务。结果表明,在多文本理解任务中,对利用日常生活经验和情感的基于个人案例的文本的记忆好于基于科学的文本。与以学习为目的的阅读相比,以评价为目的的阅读只有利于对信念不一致的个人文本的记忆,并导致对所有文本的可信度评分降低。本研究的结果凸显了与论证质量有关的因素(即论证类型)在理解和可信度判断中的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: For more than 40 years, Reading Research Quarterly has been essential reading for those committed to scholarship on literacy among learners of all ages. The leading research journal in the field, each issue of RRQ includes •Reports of important studies •Multidisciplinary research •Various modes of investigation •Diverse viewpoints on literacy practices, teaching, and learning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信