Baker, L., & Anderson, R. I. (1982). Effects of inconsistent information on text processing: Evidence for comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2), 281-294.

Baker, L.; Anderson, R.

1982

Baker, L., & Anderson, R. I. (1982). Effects of inconsistent information on text processing: Evidence for comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2), 281-294.

geen

Expository passages containing either main point inconsistencies, detail inconsistencies, or no inconsistencies were presented sentence by sentence to 90 college students. Ss read through the passages at their own pace and were encouraged to reread previous sections of text whenever they wished. As expected, Ss spent more time on sentences containing information that conflicted with information presented elsewhere, and they looked back more often at inconsistent sentences. These modifications in processing indicate that the Ss monitored their comprehension as they read, evaluating whether the ideas expressed in the text were consistent with one another. Post-reading measures provided additional support for this conclusion. The relationship between text processing and subsequent identification of the inconsistencies was also examined. Individual and intraindividual differences were found both in processing strategies and in detection of the inconsistencies.

This study had provided unambiguous evidence that mature readers monitor their comprehension as they read. This finding validated the common assumption that comprehension monitoring is a component of the reading process. The data indicate that one standard by which readers evaluate the success of their ongoing effects to comprehend is to test whether the ideas expressed in a text are consistent with one another. The fact that instructing subjects to evaluate the text for consistency had no effect on reading behavior suggests that this internal consistency standard is applied routinely, at least b mature readers who monitor their comprehension.

90

3