Where Do Their Answers Come from? A Study of the Inferences which Children Make when Answering Questions about Narrative Stories

Abstract

Abstract. Young readers often seem to overlook explicitly stated causal statements in narrative texts and instead give their own versions of why a text event occurred. Some researchers would agree with Smith (1979) that children do this because they read for meaning rather than word-by-word. This is an "inside-out" (or, "schema-based") view of text comprehension. Other researchers, however, agree with Thorndike (1917) that "errors" occur because "the mind is assailed by every word in the paragraph." This is an "outside-in" (or, "text-based") view of the comprehension process. The purpose of this study was to find out the relative influence of text data and prior knowledge on the kinds of inferences which children make when answering questions about stories. In Experiment 1, text structure was altered by embedding either predictable or unpredictable reasons for events in the text, and also by varying the position and distance of these reasons from the text event being asked about. Some of these stories were familiar; others less so. Text accessibility was also varied. In all, the design was a 2 4 × 3 factorial, using repeated measures. In Experiment 2, a causal "preference" factor was added, to take account of the fact that children seemed predisposed toward certain kinds of inferences, whether they are predictable or not. The results provide support for the notion that text data and background knowledge compete for priority in question-answering. They suggest that children may benefit from instruction which helps them to arbitrate between plausible, yet competing explanations for important text events.Children often seem to overlook explicitly stated causal statements in narrative stories and instead make their own inferences about why certain text events occur.Special thanks are due to the children, principals and staff of Richmond Park, Glenview, Hillcrest, Hamilton East and Woodstock schools for helping us with this study. We are also grateful to the principal of Fruitvale School, and to the children there who allowed us to talk to them at length about our questions and their answers. The comments of Journal of Reading Behavior reviewers were also of considerable assistance to us in revising this article.

“How do You Know this Answer?” – Children’s Use of Text Data and General Knowledge in Story Comprehension

“…The study conducted by Nicholson and Imlach (1981) with 8-year-old children also indicated that young readers sometimes trust more in their prior knowledge than in what the text states. The children (average or above-average readers) read stories that included explicit causal statements about the reason for the events described in the texts.…”

“…In contrast to Nicholson and Imlach (1981) and McCormick (1992) the comprehension questions in the present study were presented orally, since having to write their answers may limit the extent to which young children can express themselves. Indeed, McCormick reports that she was unable to use a substantial proportion of the children's (written) responses, because they were insufficiently precise.…”

“…For example, in a story about a pet lamb, they had to state why the lamb started to run around in a shop. According to Nicholson and Imlach (1981), the children tended to consider the text information in answering the questions, i.e., they used the causal statements given in the text. However, there were reported cases where the children rejected the causal statements in the stories and gave the most likely reason, based on their prior knowledge.…”

Developmental effect of symmetrical peer interaction during initial phases of reading literacy development

“…Sličan zaključak izveli su i drugi istraživači -deca koja imaju teškoću da razumeju pročitani sadržaj imaju problem da integrišu informacije iz teksta sa prethodnim znanjima (McCormic, 1992). Prema Mekormiku, dva su moguća uzroka tog problema: (1) neka deca se previše oslanjaju na ranija znanja, zanemarujući tako relevantne informacije prezentovane u tekstu koji čitaju (videti takođe: Nicholson & Imlach, 1982); (2) neka deca se prekomerno oslanjaju na ono što je u tekstu eksplicitno dato, ne pokušavajući da izvedu zaključke na osnovu znanja koja imaju. Diskusiji o korišćenju ranijih znanja prilikom čitanja teksta i izgrađivanja njegovog razumevanja treba dodati i interpretaciju prema kojoj deca odgovaraju na pitanja o tekstu oslanjajući se prvenstveno na prethodna znanja, zanemarujući poruke koje tekst prenosi, onda kada nisu sigurna u pogledu odgovora koji treba da daju, a ne žele da kažu da nešto ne znaju, odnosno ne razumeju (Brandão & Oakhill, 2005).…”

“…Nema, dakle, podataka na osnovu kojih bismo mogli izvesti zaključak da se deca pozivaju na svoja lična iskustva i prethodna znanja, zanemarujući pročitani tekst, što je bio zaključak jednog dela istraživača iz ove oblasti. Da podsetimo, nalazi nekih studija ukazali su na to da do teškoća prilikom čitanja, između ostalog, dolazi zato što se deca previše oslanjaju na ranija znanja, zanemarujući relevantne informacije iznete u tekstu koji čitaju (Nicholson & Imlach, 1982;McCormic, 1992). Sa druge strane, u uvodnom delu teksta ukazali smo i na nešto drugačije nalaze koji su pokazali da su takve teškoće prilično retke (postoje u svega 6,46% dečijih odgovora) (Brandão & Oakhill, 2005).…”