A THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF REVISION STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY PROFICIENT AND LESS PROFICIENT READERS FOR UNDERLYING MODEL CONSTRUCTION IN NARRATIVE TEXT.

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/184447
Title:
A THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF REVISION STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY PROFICIENT AND LESS PROFICIENT READERS FOR UNDERLYING MODEL CONSTRUCTION IN NARRATIVE TEXT.
Author:
Dybdahl, Claudia Strange
Issue Date:
1982
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to investigate the strategies employed by proficient and less proficient readers as they engaged in the revision of underlying models during the reading of narrative text. Specifically, four research questions were addressed: (1) What revision strategies can be identified? (2) What evidence is used in the revision process? (3) What criteria do readers employ to evaluate revision? (4) What differences exist between proficient and less proficient readers as regards the strategies, evidence and evaluation? Sixteen fifth and sixth grade readers participated in this study. Eight were grouped as proficient and eight as less proficient on the basis of reading test scores and teacher judgment. All readers read the same text, taken from Roald Dahl's The Magic Finger. The text was divided into ten sections, and readers were asked to read each section orally, and then discuss what had happened. The discussion following the reading of each section was conducted as an unstructured interview with the lead being taken from the child. The entire session was taped and transcribed. The major conclusions were: (1) Readers have available a number of strategies for revision. (2) Different texts will necessitate the use of different strategies. (3) Readers most often use a combination of endophoric and exophoric evidence to support revision. (4) The revision of interpropositional hypotheses involves more inference and elaboration of the text. (5) Proficient readers are more tentative during reading than less proficient readers. (6) Proficient readers construct more interpropositional hypotheses than do less proficient readers. The major implications of this study are: (1) Reading programs should include both materials and instructional practices enabling the full use of the strategies of prediction and confirmation by the reader. (2) Less proficient readers need to develop their use of prediction in text to the point where they are comfortable with tentativeness.
Type:
text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)
Keywords:
Reading comprehension.; Reading -- Psychological aspects.; Reading (Elementary)
Degree Name:
Ph.D.
Degree Level:
doctoral
Degree Program:
Elementary Education; Graduate College
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.titleA THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF REVISION STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY PROFICIENT AND LESS PROFICIENT READERS FOR UNDERLYING MODEL CONSTRUCTION IN NARRATIVE TEXT.en_US
dc.creatorDybdahl, Claudia Strangeen_US
dc.contributor.authorDybdahl, Claudia Strangeen_US
dc.date.issued1982en_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this study was to investigate the strategies employed by proficient and less proficient readers as they engaged in the revision of underlying models during the reading of narrative text. Specifically, four research questions were addressed: (1) What revision strategies can be identified? (2) What evidence is used in the revision process? (3) What criteria do readers employ to evaluate revision? (4) What differences exist between proficient and less proficient readers as regards the strategies, evidence and evaluation? Sixteen fifth and sixth grade readers participated in this study. Eight were grouped as proficient and eight as less proficient on the basis of reading test scores and teacher judgment. All readers read the same text, taken from Roald Dahl's The Magic Finger. The text was divided into ten sections, and readers were asked to read each section orally, and then discuss what had happened. The discussion following the reading of each section was conducted as an unstructured interview with the lead being taken from the child. The entire session was taped and transcribed. The major conclusions were: (1) Readers have available a number of strategies for revision. (2) Different texts will necessitate the use of different strategies. (3) Readers most often use a combination of endophoric and exophoric evidence to support revision. (4) The revision of interpropositional hypotheses involves more inference and elaboration of the text. (5) Proficient readers are more tentative during reading than less proficient readers. (6) Proficient readers construct more interpropositional hypotheses than do less proficient readers. The major implications of this study are: (1) Reading programs should include both materials and instructional practices enabling the full use of the strategies of prediction and confirmation by the reader. (2) Less proficient readers need to develop their use of prediction in text to the point where they are comfortable with tentativeness.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
dc.subjectReading comprehension.en_US
dc.subjectReading -- Psychological aspects.en_US
dc.subjectReading (Elementary)en_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineElementary Educationen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberGoodman, Kenneth S.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberGoodman, Yetta M.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberVan Allen, Roachen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberTanz, Christineen_US
dc.identifier.proquest8227349en_US
dc.identifier.oclc682919341en_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.