Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa

Vol. 6, No. 1, 2004

A Way of Processing the Information in
Scientific Textbooks and its Influence
on Comprehension

Miriam Carranza   (*)
carranmi@hotmail.com

Gabriela Celaya   (*)
gabrielacelaya@hotmail.com

Julio Herrera   (*)
jherrera@com.uncor.edu

Fernando Carezzano   (*)
fercarezza@yahoo.com.ar

*  Cátedra de Morfología Animal
Escuela de Biología Facultad de
Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales
Universidad Nacional de Córdoba

Av. Vélez Sarsfield 299, 5000
Córdoba, Argentina

(Received: March 18, 2003; accepted for publishing: December 2, 2003)

Abstract

Students who can meet the demands of academic discourse develop cognitive and metacognitive skills with which to understand the information they get from reading scientific texts, and thus establish their learning. In this work, a group of university students were evaluated concerning their competencies and deficiencies in the reading comprehension of a fragment of a scientific text used in one of their courses. The results allowed us to assess the most frequent difficulties in processing information and in understanding what they read. The group was made up of a few students skilled in reading comprehension skills, plus several inexpert readers with little capacity to monitor and assess their own understanding.

Key words: Information, texts, comprehension, higher education.

Introduction

A review of the last fifty years’ research on reading comprehension reveals various theories about the reading process (Dubois, 1991). For some authors, the reader understands a text when she can recognize the meaning of the words and sentences that constitute it; for others, understanding comes when the information contained in the text is integrated with the reader’s prior knowledge or schemata, and influences the comprehension process (Rumelhart, 1980, Anderson and Pearson, 1984). The latter point out that the reader tries to find appropriate ways to explain the text and make sense of the information (Quintana, 2000); when the new information is received, the patterns are restructured, adjusted and perfected. Reading also is perceived as a process of transaction between the reader and the text (Rosenblatt, 1976), and the meaning extracted from the latter will depend on the transactions produced between the reader and the text in a specific context (Cairney, 1992).

Currently, education researchers define reading comprehension as the technique of producing the meaning of the relevant ideas of the text, and relating them to ideas the reader already has, a process in which the reader interacts with the text (Otero, 1997; Campanario and Otero, 2000; Sánchez Miguel, 1993; Macías Castro and Maturano, 1999).

Numerous studies have addressed the issue of reading comprehension from different perspectives and with different aims, such as diagnosing the predisposition of students to read (Cadile and Cadile, 2002), analyzing and evaluating reading comprehension skills (Otero, 1997; Macias, et al., 1999; Martínez, Montero and Pedrosa, 2001), determining the factors that affect understanding (Macías, et al., 1999; Otero, 1990; Alliende, Condemarín and Milicic, 1993) and the mechanisms that operate in that process (Areiza and Henao, 2000b). There are also those who develop models, procedures and strategies to promote reading comprehension (Alzate, 1999; Bernard, Feat, San Ginés and Sabido, 1994, Izquierdo and Rivera, 1997). Most works are oriented toward the problem of comprehension in early and middle levels of education. Few studies address the issue in higher education (Macias, et al., 1999; Greybeck, 1999, Contreras and Covarrubias, 1999).

In higher education, specific disciplinary content is transmitted, and it is understood that students must “comprehend or understand” the contents of the texts (Carlino, 2002), i.e. university students must (or should) have the ability to interpret conceptual subtleties and implications, and to construct new semantic networks that take metatextual and intertextual competency into account (Areiza and Henao, 1999). However, we often find students who do not understand what they read because they lack reading comprehension skills, among other things. This is reflected in their limitations regarding the generalization or transference of what they have learned to situations other than those which gave rise to their learning (Vargas and Arbeláez, 2001).

In this sense, Areiza and Henao (1999) emphasize the fact that many cognitive and metacognitive skills involving complex mechanisms are deployed at the end of high school and even in graduate school. These competencies would be achieved in a later stage of intellectual development (Ugartetxea, 2001), which is why teachers of higher education should know their students’ skills in reading comprehension. Deficiencies in this field prevent students from meeting the demands of academic discourse and work rhythms. Some educators do not recognize that the reading and writing tasks they require are part of the academic practices inherent in the mastery of their discipline (Carlino, 2002).

Martinez, et al. (2001) have pointed out that 82% of educators report comprehension problems in Argentine public school students. This is the result of small amount of time they spend reading, since some high school students spend less than two hours a day in reading any type of printed material (Cadile and Cadile, 2002). As one may expect, inexpert students will be disadvantaged in confronting upper-level studies, since reading and understanding to build the overall meaning of the text is a priority skill that must be mastered, as it is the basis of learning and culture (Paris, Lipson and Wixson, 1983).

Background

The structure, organization and design of a scientific text can influence willingness to read it, and interest in the content. The contribution of the texts to the process of teaching and learning a discipline can be evaluated through criteria that allow its analysis and comparison. In previous works we analyzed the dimension of quality, the usefulness of scientific texts (Carranza, Celaya and Carezzano, 2001, Carranza, Celaya, Carezzano and Herrera, 2002) employed in the teaching and learning of different subjects of the degree program in Biology.

After an iterative process of testing and adjustments to the survey model used to analyze printed texts (Carranza and Celaya 2002; Herrera, Carranza and Carezzano, 2002), we detected in students certain difficulties concerning how to explore and operate with scientific books; this affects academic performance. There were differences in reading comprehension between groups of students in the basic stage and those in the upper level of the program. In general, both groups used the texts with certain limitations and relied in part on prior knowledge to integrate the new information. Textual and cognitive competence was partially developed in the basic cycle. As we have pointed out in another study, upper-level students evaluated and monitored their understanding better; however, they developed metacognitive strategies when there was a significant intervention by the teacher (III Congress of Anatomy of the Southern Cone, 2002).

Conceptual Framework

The specific type of mental operations used by a good reader depends largely on the structure of the texts (narrative, expository or scientific). The skilled reader is able to recognize the type of text he is reading, and in this way, updates and expands his network of conceptual schematics. This implies that for the text he must develop a meaning that includes the author's intentions, and must begin a process whose development makes the difference between a good reader and one who is not expert (Godoy, 2001).

Pearson, Roehler, Dole and Duffy (1992) have shown that competent readers possess defined characteristics, among which are notable: a) their use of prior knowledge to make sense of what they read; b) their assessment of their understanding during the entire reading process; c) their performance of the necessary steps to correct comprehension errors when dealing with misinterpretations; d) their distinguishing what is relevant in the texts they read, and summarization of information; e) their constantly making inferences, i.e., they have the ability to understand some particular aspect of the text based on the meaning of the rest (Anderson and Pearson, 1984); f) their formulation of predictions, developing logical and reasonable hypotheses regarding what they are going to find in the text; g) their asking and taking responsibility for their reading processes.

Problems concerning the comprehension of texts are (Benito, 2000):

• The difficulties of operating with the information in the text. The immature reader often processes it in a linear manner, and has trouble identifying global aspects within the text.
• Deficiencies in evaluating and regulating their own understanding. Inadequate control prevents the reader from identifying discrepancies between the scientific information a text provides, and inappropriate concepts the text may contain.

Work Methodology

We worked with a group of fifth-quarter Biology students from the National University of Cordoba (NUC), Argentina, in 2001. To assess their competencies and possible deficiencies in reading comprehension, these students were asked to make an analysis of an excerpt from the book Invertebrate Zoology, by Barnes (1989); this book was used in a specific course. They were given a test paper with a 252-word passage about “Coelom”; the passage was transcribed verbatim, and was organized into three paragraphs. This topic, proposed by the teacher in charge of the class, represented a previous taxonomic and evolutionary value concept which the learners had acquired in the course they had taken earlier as a prerequisite for their present class, and which they had to apply and integrate into their present course contents.

In compliance with the guidelines established, the students/readers had to carry out the following activities: 1) Write an appropriate, complete and representative title for the fragment. These adjectives were defined as: appropriate, including terms that indicated the main idea; complete, distinguishing the most relevant aspects of the main idea, and representative, referring to the overall structure of the topic. (Regarding the subject matter of the text, they had to include terms or synonyms for body cavity, structural diversity, metazoans). 2) Underline the main idea(s) and enclose the subordinate ideas in parentheses. 3) Make a five-line summary, which should be: coherent, complete and not exceeding the length designated; i.e., state the most important ideas in the text, with the main idea and the subordinate ideas in logical order and sequence according to priority; the statements of the ideas had to contain the most important aspects of the topic. 4) Select five key words representative of the subject treated, without redundancy or errors. 5) Detect possible inconsistencies in the text. Regarding the latter activity, there was deliberately introduced a sentence inconsistent with 31% of the evidence submitted. The inconsistent element was added at a point followed by the two last lines of the second paragraph, and said: “...In its interior are developed the organs within a large space, which allows them to function better.” This statement, related to the concept of the coelom, was placed immediately following the definition of acelomates (organisms without a coelom).

The material was distributed to 50% of the total student population (95), and the data presented are for 20 students who voluntarily took the test. Those who did not take it argued that analyzing the text fragment was too time-consuming for them. The test was given after the last partial evaluation of the course when, supposedly, there was greater interaction between students and textbook. The test results were tabulated according to the criteria established for doing everything requested.

Results and discussion

The text fragment analysis results belonging to 20 students (21.05% of total population) are shown in Tables I, II and III.

Most of the students included a title to the piece, but only one met the three conditions: that the title be appropriate, complete and representative. The remaining gave the fragment appropriate titles, and approximately half of the titles given were complete. Four students wrote incorrect titles: two people used elements of the secondary idea as part of the title. The rest incorporated inconsistencies, demonstrating an incorrect use of terms and therefore, of concepts; for example, including metazoans and flatworms, or referring only to invertebrates or alluding exclusively to the role of intracavitary fluid (see Table I).

Conclusions

This study provides an overview of competencies and deficiencies in reading comprehension in this group of third-year students in the UNC’s basic cycle of Biology. The group is composed of a few competent readers, and others who still show themselves to be inexpert. The reader with specific formal education, and who is concerned with the reading of scientific texts must be able to identify the author's communicative intentions, as well as to recognize and rank the propositions according to priority. In the set of propositions, he should also differentiate the main idea containing the subject, from those whose function is to present, extend, support or exemplify it. In this way, he can enrich his cognitive schematics and increase the number of inferences, which will facilitate new readings and improve his intertextual competence (De Zubiría, 1997; Areiza and Henao, 1998, 1999, Contreras and Covarrubias, 1999).

The results indicate that some students have not yet reached this level of reading comprehension, defined by De Zubiría (1997) as elementary reading of tertiary decoding. Such a situation should cause reflection on the part of university teachers who thought that their students “must understand” the specific disciplinary content in scientific texts.

Understanding is not an all-or-nothing process; students can understand in part, to different degrees, or completely. They may also be repeatedly committing certain types of errors (Contreras and Covarrubias, 1999).

The loss of the reading habit in young people may be associated with multiple causes, among which are mentioned disinterest, lack of motivation, socio-economic decline, changes in values and advances in technology.

Recently, in Argentina there have emerged concerns over the lack of reading comprehension skills in students of basic education, as reported by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), (“The Social Gap”, 2003). The specialists relate these issues to the low investment in education in all the countries of Latin America.

In another order of ideas, technologies such as books, movies, television, video and computers, have been incorporated naturally and gradually into the educational process (González Pérez 2001). However, the impact the computer has had in our society has given rise to very different and contrasting opinions. Thus, for some educators, the computer is a tool that does not work to the extent expected in the overall development of language skills (Greyback, 1999).

The problem could be related to the educational context and the capabilities of those who plan the goals and activities to be used on the computer. While it is accepted that the proper use of new computer and communication technologies (ICTs) can implement pedagogical principles for those in which the subject is the protagonist in the construction of knowledge (Waldegg, 2002), in some Argentine junior high schools, the computer has a limited impact on educational development and students’ daily work. Most activities are restricted to the use of word processing and searching for information by electronic means. This scarcely encourages the development of strategies to help overcome the problems of concept comprehension (Martínez et al., 2001). On the other hand, outside school, many young people spend much of their time in businesses that provide Internet service (cybers, internet cafes) and perform various activities with more attractive and participatory options (online games, chat, interaction with communications media) which do not exactly promote higher-order cognitive skills.

Currently, the development of networks with electronic support (Web) has led to a more interactive stage for the teaching-learning process. However, for Latin American countries the transition to digital information and knowledge implies economic investments that are far from matching those of industrialized countries (González Pérez 2001).

In attempting to generate interest and motivate students by using strategies commensurate with the circumstances, we developed and evaluated a CD hypertext resource on specific topics of the fourth-quarter course of that degree program in Biology. This was used by students to supplement other didactic materials, and had the aim of promoting a more participatory and active teaching and learning process. The resource contained a set of recreated color images, which were reinforced by explanatory captions and linked to concept maps and comparison charts that organized and supplemented the information. Some evaluation results indicated that as readers integrate what they already know with new concepts, they become little competent in processing information when they do not monitor and evaluate their cognitive processes. This suggests that difficulties in reading comprehension go beyond the type of resources used (Carranza and Celaya, 2003).

The cognitive configuration of an individual is built using her own conceptual structure and the semantic information she obtains from the world and the context. All this integrates her prior knowledge with a support for the acquisition of new knowledge (Areiza and Henao, 1999; Woolfolk, 1996). The reading of texts, especially scientific ones, is a key technique for recovering acquired knowledge and using concepts that activate the memory as well as the ability to reason, and to make sense of and evaluate the cognitive processes developed, that is, for expanding cognitive and metacognitive skills.

References

Alliende, F., Condemarín, M., & Milicic, N. (1993). Prueba de comprensión lectora de complejidad lingüística progresiva: 8 niveles de lectura. Santiago: Universidad Católica de Chile.

Alzate, M. V. (1999). ¿Cómo leer un texto escolar?: Texto, paratexto e imágenes. Revista de Ciencias Humanas, 20. Retrieved May 5, 2001, from:
http://www.utp.edu.co/~chumanas/revistas/revistas/rev20/alzate.htlm

Anderson, R. C. & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoric view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-291). New York: Longman.

Please cite the source as:

Carranza M., Celaya, G., Herrera, J., & Carezzano F. (2004). A way of processing the information in scientific textbooks and its influence on comprehension. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 6 (1). Retrieved month day, year, from: http://redie.uabc.mx/vol6no1/contents-carranza.html