Abstract

A high level of text comprehension can be achieved by engaging learners in processes of organization and integration while reading a cohesive text. In the present study, we investigated the impact of an innovative generative technique on learning with scientific texts. The cohesion generation was implemented by means of explicit cohesion gaps. High school students (n = 199) were randomly assigned to either receive a fully cohesive scientific text (control condition) or a scientific text that required the selection of causal connectives, such as because, although, therefore, or however (generation condition). Learners in the generation condition were required to reflect on causal relations to complete the text. All students were tested immediately (T1) and 2 weeks after the learning phase (T2). Cognitive load was measured by a dual task and self-report measure. Contrary to our expectations, no differences were found in performance on inference questions (situation model). Learners in the generation condition performed worse on text-based questions at T1 but showed less forgetting from T1 to T2. The impact of condition on the situation model was moderated by reading skills. Remarkably, the generation success was highly predictive for learning outcomes even when controlling for learners’ proficiencies. Consequently, learners who succeeded to employ effortful processes to overcome the difficulty showed a superior performance on both the text-base and situation-model questions compared to students reading the cohesive text. Moreover, in these learners, generative activity led to a sustainable learning performance 2 weeks later. Poor readers especially took advantage of generative activity, despite struggling to perform the cohesion task as indicated by the cognitive load measures. The results suggest that the activity of generating causal relations can augment inferential processing in learners who are not involved in inferential processing spontaneously. To successfully apply this generative learning technique, students require considerable instructional support.

Highlights

  • Expository texts are a major source of scientific knowledge in educational settings

  • Based on the distinction of different levels of information integration in the CI framework (Kintsch, 1988), we expected the participants in the generation condition to benefit primarily in terms of the situation model assessed by high-level inference questions (H1)

  • Simple comparisons revealed no differences between. These advanced learners showed a superior performance on the situation model and text-based questions compared to learners who read a fully cohesive text

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Expository texts are a major source of scientific knowledge in educational settings. Unexperienced readers, struggle with expository texts, because the content in general and the macrostructures of the text are usually unfamiliar to them (Meyer, 1975; Cook and Mayer, 1988; Lorch, 2015). Based on the distinction of different levels of information integration in the CI framework (Kintsch, 1988), we expected the participants in the generation condition to benefit primarily in terms of the situation model assessed by high-level inference questions (H1) Answering such questions requires learners to relate multiple idea units from the text (organization) and to integrate the novel content into a coherent representation. The text-based representation—assessed by low-level retention questions— might be promoted (H2), because learners need to reprocess and reflect on the meaning of the previous and successive clauses to establish a causal relation. Reading skills help learners to relate multiple ideas and various concepts throughout a text via effortful inferential processing and integrate textual information in a coherent mental representation (Hannon and Daneman, 2001). An explicit instruction to generate causal relations might engage poor readers in organization and integration processes and in turn promote learning (H5)

Design
Procedure
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
Limitations
FINAL CONCLUSION
ETHICS STATEMENT
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call