The author of this study has provided interesting contributions in reinforcing the literature on students learning and comprehension process. The authors investigated the effect of textual differences on the children’s learning process by analyzing Turkish primary school student’s comprehension strategies, by employing the ‘think aloud’ methodology (72). Specifically, the author wished to avail an answer to the following question: ‘Do sixth grade primary school children exhibit different reader characteristics with different texts? (p. 72).
An expository text and a narrative text were used in the study in such a way that the readers could not know for certain what the topic had been until last sentence of the text so that the texts could reveal the processing strategies of the children, as advocated for by other researchers (p. 73). The expository text tested six variables while the narrative text tested 13 variables (p. 73-75). The think loud and the recall procedures were then applied to the subjects as advocated for by prior studies on the subject (p. 75) before the Fleiss Kappa tests were conducted to assess the inter-rater agreement. These tests suggested strong initial inter-rater agreement for both the first (K = 0.75) and the second (K= 0.79) texts. The arising disagreements were resolved through consensus (p. 75).
According to the authors, the major implications of the study were that it is important to determine how new information will be processed by leading people to interpret the message in different ways, and more so for the students. In reading classes therefore, more positive attributes can be inculcated among the students when the teachers’ starts with activities that provides the students with the necessary background knowledge related to the text to be comprehended whenever the teacher is aware of the fact that the students lack the required schema. In the case of a sufficient schema, the students can be supported by pre-reading activities to activate the appropriate schema or the teacher can help his/her students by activating not only one but as many as possible alternative schema to construct meaning from the text when they start reading (p. 81).
Major learning lessons
The major learning lessons is that since the study points to different reading behaviors of students with different texts, teachers should carefully consider the texts to be used for measurement of comprehension, with particular regard to their students’ background knowledge. Such an attitude can be helpful in achieving an objective assessment of student reading comprehension skills. As has been pointed out though, the one limitation identified is with regards to the fact that the author only used two texts and one feels that the study would have been better if a third text had been used. As several authors have pointed out, there are various types of comprehension strategies, and those used by the text processors may change according to the texts being processed. The instruments of research adopted, may actually have failed to provide for sensitivity between groups. Still another limitation was with regards to the fact that the whole research was conducted within the set up of a single school. Finally, because random assignment was not possible, the use of intact groups became a necessity.
The above limitations presents us with a rich area for further research where the above study can be replicated and the limitations addressed by the use of a bigger and different sample and subjects, assessed over a longer (shorter) interval. This would help as draw inferences into the authencity and validity of the results presented in this article and act as a basis for cross-reference.
Reference
Cakir, O. (2009). The effect of textual differences on children’s processing strategies. Reading improvements (2), 45: 69-82. Mersin University Faculty of Education: Turkey.