Beishuizen, J., Stoutjesdijk, E., Spuijbroek, S., Bouwmeester, S., & van der Geest, H. (2002). Understanding abstract expository texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 279-289.
Beishuizen, J.;Stoutjesdijk, E.;Spuijbroek, S.;Bouwmeester, S.;van der Geest, H.
2002
Beishuizen, J., Stoutjesdijk, E., Spuijbroek, S., Bouwmeester, S., & van der Geest, H. (2002). Understanding abstract expository texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 279-289.
geen
Explores whether abstract concepts and rules can only be explained using examples in the context of understanding expository texts (ETs). By blocking the linking of concepts to examples, the study aimed to show that the understanding of abstract concepts and the acquisition of semantic knowledge is impossible without a concrete context of interpretation. 89 secondary school students (mean age 17 yrs) and 63 undergraduate students studied ETs with no vs many examples. In Exp 1, 2 existing texts were manipulated by either adding examples or by replacing specific concepts by more ambiguous concepts. In Exp 2, 2 ETs (1 with rules, 1 with examples) on the law of large numbers were developed. Ss also completed a questionnaire assessing habitual concrete elaboration (CE) whilst studying. Exp 1 revealed that an ET with ambiguous terms is difficult to understand, supporting the claim that a concrete context of interpretation is indispensable. However, there was no difference in text comprehension with many vs few examples. An explanation might be that Ss were able to think of relevant examples themselves. Evidence for this active way of text comprehension was found in Exp 2, in which an interaction between content (abstract, concrete) and learning style (high or low on CE) appeared.
Experiment 1 revealed that an expository text with ambiguous terms is difficult to understand. This evidence supported our claim that a concrete context of interpretation is indispensable. However, there was no difference in understanding of texts with many or few examples.
32
2