![]() ![]() expository genre), and question types (literal and inferential)-to one’s performance on discourse comprehension in oral language (listening comprehension), using data from 529 second graders. We investigated the contributions of multiple strands of factors-individual characteristics (struggling reader status, working memory, vocabulary, grammatical knowledge, knowledge-based inference, theory of mind, comprehension monitoring), a text feature (narrative vs. This finding has implications for any domain in which acquiring and retaining information is important. Moreover, this result was robust, not influenced by the inclusion of a single effect-size or single study, and not moderated by various study characteristics. Based on over 75 unique samples and data from more than 33,000 participants, we found that stories were more easily understood and better recalled than essays. To synthesize research in this area, we conducted a meta-analysis of experiments in which memory and/or comprehension of narrative and expository texts was investigated. However, empirical work in this area has yielded mixed results. Stories and essays differ across a variety of dimensions, including structure and content, with numerous theories hypothesizing that stories are easier to understand and recall than essays. We acquire a lot of information about the world through texts, which can be categorized at the broadest level into two primary genres: narratives and exposition. Moreover, the findings may guide choices of modality however, both audio and written options are needed for accessible instruction. The findings may be used to inform theories of comprehension about modality influences in that both lower-level skill and affordances vary comparisons of reading and listening comprehension. There was some indication that reading and listening were more similar in languages with transparent orthographies than opaque orthographies (g = 0.001, p =. Reading also had a benefit when inferential and general comprehension rather than literal comprehension was assessed (g = 0.36, p =. 049) rather than experimenter-paced (g = -0.32, p =. Reading was beneficial over listening when the reading condition was self-paced (g = 0.13, p =. Based on robust variance estimation (46 studies N = 4,687), the overall difference between reading and listening comprehension was not reliably different (g = 0.07, p =. In this study, a meta-analysis of reading and listening comprehension comparisons across age groups was conducted.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |