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

Citation
Mf. Ehrlich et al., Processing of anaphoric devices in young skilled and less skilled comprehenders: Differences in metacognitive monitoring, READ WRIT, 11(1), 1999, pp. 29-63
Citations number
57
Categorie Soggetti
Education
Journal title
READING AND WRITING
ISSN journal
09224777 → ACNP
Volume
11
Issue
1
Year of publication
1999
Pages
29 - 63
Database
ISI
SICI code
0922-4777(199902)11:1<29:POADIY>2.0.ZU;2-P
Abstract
This experiment investigated metacognitive monitoring in the processing of anaphors in 10-year-old skilled and less skilled comprehenders. Two tasks w ere used with expository texts. The direct self-evaluation task was carried out with consistent texts in which target anaphors were either repeated no un phrases or pronouns. Subjects had to read and to evaluate their own comp rehension on a 6-point scale. After reading, subjects answered multiple-cho ice questions designed to test the processing of anaphors. In the inconsist ency detection task, target anaphors were either repeated noun phrases or i nconsistent noun phrases. Subjects had to read and detect inconsistencies. After reading, they answered multiple-choice questions. In both tasks, on-l ine measures (reading times for units containing target anaphors and for su bsequent units, and look-backs) were collected in addition to off-line meas ures (ratings of comprehension, detection of inconsistencies and response t o multiple-choice questions) in order to analyse indicators of implicit and explicit evaluation and revision activities. The results from the two task s converged: less skilled comprehenders showed deficiencies in monitoring o n measures of implicit and explicit evaluation and revision. Patterns of re ading times revealed that less skilled comprehenders were sensitive to the difficulties in processing pronouns in the self-evaluation task and also se nsitive to the lack of text cohesion in the inconsistency detection task. H owever, this sensitivity was weak and unable to trigger explicit activities . These results were interpreted in the framework of Karmiloff-Smith's (198 6) model.