Content knowledge and comprehension: A meta-analytic review of correlational and causal associations.

IF 19.9 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Young-Suk Grace Kim, Yucheng Cao
{"title":"Content knowledge and comprehension: A meta-analytic review of correlational and causal associations.","authors":"Young-Suk Grace Kim, Yucheng Cao","doi":"10.1037/bul0000502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We examined (a) the relation between content knowledge and comprehension (both reading and listening comprehension) using correlational data and (b) the impact of content knowledge instruction on content knowledge and comprehension using causal data. Moderation by assessment, person, instruction, and study quality characteristics was systematically examined. For causal data, listening comprehension was excluded from moderation analysis due to insufficient studies. Correlational data from 108 studies, 441 correlation coefficients, and N = 68,301 participants showed that content knowledge was moderately related to comprehension with an identical magnitude for listening comprehension and reading comprehension (r = .41). The relation with reading comprehension was stronger when content knowledge was assessed using norm-referenced tasks (r = .50) than when it was assessed using researcher-developed tasks (r = .39). Causal data from 55 studies, 304 treatment effect sizes, and N = 18,540 participants showed that content knowledge instruction improved content knowledge (g = 1.36) and reading comprehension (g = 0.44), but not listening comprehension (g = 0.13). Effects on reading comprehension differed: research-developed tasks (g = 0.51) compared to norm-referenced comprehension assessments (g = 0.21); knowledge activation (g = 0.66) compared to knowledge building (g = 0.19); and studies with an N of 1 design (g = 0.67) compared to those that did not (g = 0.18). The findings highlight the importance of content knowledge in comprehension while highlighting the need to consider variation in the relation and impact by assessment, instruction, and study quality features. Future directions are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"35 1","pages":"1219-1244"},"PeriodicalIF":19.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000502","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We examined (a) the relation between content knowledge and comprehension (both reading and listening comprehension) using correlational data and (b) the impact of content knowledge instruction on content knowledge and comprehension using causal data. Moderation by assessment, person, instruction, and study quality characteristics was systematically examined. For causal data, listening comprehension was excluded from moderation analysis due to insufficient studies. Correlational data from 108 studies, 441 correlation coefficients, and N = 68,301 participants showed that content knowledge was moderately related to comprehension with an identical magnitude for listening comprehension and reading comprehension (r = .41). The relation with reading comprehension was stronger when content knowledge was assessed using norm-referenced tasks (r = .50) than when it was assessed using researcher-developed tasks (r = .39). Causal data from 55 studies, 304 treatment effect sizes, and N = 18,540 participants showed that content knowledge instruction improved content knowledge (g = 1.36) and reading comprehension (g = 0.44), but not listening comprehension (g = 0.13). Effects on reading comprehension differed: research-developed tasks (g = 0.51) compared to norm-referenced comprehension assessments (g = 0.21); knowledge activation (g = 0.66) compared to knowledge building (g = 0.19); and studies with an N of 1 design (g = 0.67) compared to those that did not (g = 0.18). The findings highlight the importance of content knowledge in comprehension while highlighting the need to consider variation in the relation and impact by assessment, instruction, and study quality features. Future directions are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
内容知识和理解:相关和因果关系的元分析综述。
我们使用相关数据检验了(a)内容知识和理解(包括阅读和听力理解)之间的关系,(b)内容知识教学对内容知识和理解的影响,使用因果数据。系统地检查了评估、人员、教学和学习质量特征的适度性。对于因果数据,由于研究不足,听力理解被排除在适度分析之外。来自108项研究、441个相关系数和N = 68,301名参与者的相关数据表明,内容知识与听力理解和阅读理解具有中等程度的相关性(r = .41)。使用标准参考任务评估内容知识与阅读理解的关系(r = 0.50)比使用研究者开发的任务评估内容知识(r = 0.39)更强。来自55项研究、304个治疗效应量和N = 18,540名参与者的因果数据显示,内容知识教学改善了内容知识(g = 1.36)和阅读理解(g = 0.44),但没有改善听力理解(g = 0.13)。对阅读理解的影响:研究开发任务(g = 0.51)与规范参考理解评估(g = 0.21)不同;与知识构建(g = 0.19)相比,知识激活(g = 0.66);采用N = 1设计的研究(g = 0.67)与不采用N = 0.18设计的研究(g = 0.18)相比。研究结果强调了内容知识在理解中的重要性,同时强调了需要考虑评估、教学和学习质量特征之间的关系和影响的变化。讨论了未来的发展方向。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
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
Psychological bulletin
Psychological bulletin 医学-心理学
CiteScore
33.60
自引率
0.90%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology. Research syntheses seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses. A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments: -of the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest; -of critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research; -of important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书