ORBIS SCHOLAE
ORBIS SCHOLAE

Orbis scholae is an academic journal published by Charles University, Prague. It features articles on school education in the wider socio-cultural context. It aims to contribute to our understanding and the development of school education, and to the reflection of teaching practice and educational policy.

ORBIS SCHOLAE, Vol 9 No 3 (2015), 13–26

Teoretické modely porozumenia textu a ich interpretácie v školskom vzdelávaní

[Theoretical Models of Text Comprehension and Their Interpretations in School Education]

Oľga Zápotočná

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2016.1
published online: 01. 02. 2018

abstract

Po krátkom exkurze do histórie pedagogických a psychologických koncepcií porozumenia textu sa príspevok zameriava na dve skupiny teoretických modelov rozvíjaných na poli kognitívnych výskumov čítania s cieľom ilustrovať a porovnať ich špecifické prínosy, edukačné odkazy a reálne dopady na vzdelávaciu prax. Z tohto hľadiska, ktoré bolo aj kritériom výberu prezentovaných modelov, sa v krátkosti prezentujú najznámejšie z teórií porozumenia ako dekódovania významu, ktorých vplyv na vzdelávaciu prax je v našich podmienkach zreteľnejší. V kontraste k nim a podrobnejšie sú analyzované vybrané teórie čítania, ktoré porozumenie chápu a skúmajú ako súčasť všeobecnej kognície a poznávania sveta prostredníctvom učenia sa z textu, s dôrazom na vyššie úrovne kognitívneho spracovania významu a jeho konštruovania na báze východiskových vedomostí a predstavivosti čitateľa. V závere príspevku sa naznačujú možnosti ich zmysluplnejšieho prepojenia so súčasným a na pôde vzdelávania silnejúcim sociokultúrnym diskurzom o porozumení textu ako výsledku sociálne a kultúrne situovanej komunikačnej praxe. The paper outlines a brief history of pedagogical and psychological approaches to text comprehension with emphasis on cognitive theories of reading. The special attention is payed to comparison of two groups of reading theories in a view of their contribution to education. With this aim several noted bottom-up models of reading are mentioned approaching to meaning and comprehension as a result of text decoding. The impact of these theories on teaching reading in Slovak schools is quite obvious. On contrary and more in-depth analyses of several top-down reading theories are presented explaining reading comprehension as a central component of general cognition. Reading comprehension is understood as a process of meaning construction, knowledge building and learning with emphasis on higher-level cognitive processing based on background knowledge and imagination of the reader. In conclusion the possible interconnections of the above reading schools within the context of contemporary discourse on sociocultural theories explaining reading comprehension as an outcome of socially and culturally situated communicative practice are suggested.

keywords: porozumenie textu; kognitívne modely čítania; vyučovanie čítania text comprehension; cognitive models of reading; teaching reading

references (45)

1. Alba, J. W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 93(2), 203−231. CrossRef

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

3. Armbruster, B. B. (1986). Schema theory and the design of content-area textbooks. Educational Psychologist, 21(4), 253−267. CrossRef

4. Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.

5. Avgerinou, M. D., & Pettersson, R. (2011). Toward a cohesive theory of visual literacy. Journal of Visual Literacy, 30(2), 1−19.

6. Bartlett, F. C. (1995). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef

7. Block, C. C., & Parris, S. R. (2008). Comprehension instruction: Research based best practices. New York: The Guilford Press.

8. Caravolas, M., Volín, J., & Hulme, C. (2005). Phoneme awareness is a key component of alphabetic literacy skills in consistent and inconsistent orthographies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92(2), 107−139. CrossRef

9. Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students' learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5−26. CrossRef

10. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149−170. CrossRef

11. Davis, F. B. (1944). Fundamental factors of comprehension in reading. Psychometrika, 9(3), 185−197. CrossRef

12. Elbro, C., & Buch-Iversen, I. (2013). Scientific studies of reading, 17(6), 435−452. CrossRef

13. García-Madruga, J. A., & Elosúa, M. R. (2013). Reading comprehension and working memory's executive processes: An intervention study in primary school students. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 155−174. CrossRef

14. Gavora, P. (1991). Žiak a text. Bratislava: SPN.

15. Gavora, P. et al. (2008). Ako rozvíjať porozumenie textu u žiaka. Nitra: Enigma.

16. Heimlich, J. E., & Pittelman, S. D. (1986). Semantic mapping: Classroom applications. Newark, Delaware: IRA.

17. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122−149. CrossRef

18. Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psycholgical Review, 85(5), 363−394. CrossRef

19. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163−182. CrossRef

20. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21. Kožíšek, J. (1929). Počátky čtení: Metodický pruvodce čítankou malých Poupata". Praha: Státní nakladatelství.

22. La Berge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Towards a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293−323. CrossRef

23. Liu, Y., Zhu, L., & Nian, Y. (2010). Application of schema theory in teaching college English reading. Canadian Social Science, 6(1), 59−65.

24. McVee, M. B., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J. R. (2005). Schema theory revisited. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 531−566. CrossRef

25. Millis, K., K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(1), 128 − 147. CrossRef

26. Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension. A need for alternative perspective. Language Learning, 52(2), 439−481. CrossRef

27. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt.

28. Pearson, P. D., & Hamm, D. N. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: A review of practices: Past, present, and future. In S. G. Paris & S..A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (s. 13−70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

29. Pearson, P. D. (2010). The roots of reading comprehension instruction. In K. Ganske & D. Fisher (Eds.), Comprehension across the curriculum. Perspectives and practices K-12 (s. 279−321). New York: The Guilford Press.

30. Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510−519. CrossRef

31. Příhoda, V. (1930). Globální metoda v praxi. Praha: Státní nakladatelství.

32. Průcha, J. (1987). Učení z textu a didaktická informace. Praha: Academia.

33. Robinson, H. A., Faraone, V., Hittleman, D. R., & Unruh, E. (1990). Reading comprehension instruction 1783−1987: A review of trends and research. Delaware: IRA.

34. Rowe, D. W., & Rayford, L. (1987). Activating background knowledge in reading omprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(2), 160−176. CrossRef

35. Ružička, V. (1966). Dejiny Slovenského šlabikára. Bratislava: SPN.

36. Sadoski, M. (1998). Mental imagery in reading: A sampler of some significant studies. Dostupné z http://www.readingonline.org/research/sadoski.html.

37. Sadoski, M., Paivio, A., & Goetz, E. (1991). A critique of schema theory in reading and a dual coding alternative. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(4), 463−484. CrossRef

38. Sadoski, M. (1999). Comprehending comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 493−500. CrossRef

39. Schnotz, W. (2002). Commentary: Towards an integrated view of learning form text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101−120. CrossRef

40. Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 32−71. CrossRef

41. Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading. Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: The Guilford Press.

42. Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, Ch. (2008). Advances in text comprehension: Model, process and development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 293−301. CrossRef

43. Zápotočná, O. (2001). Rozvoj počiatočnej literárnej gramotnosti. In Předškolní a primární pedagogika (s. 271−305). Praha: Portál.

44. Zápotočná, O. (2013). Metakognitívne procesy v čítaní, učení a vzdelávaní. Bratislava: TYPI Universitatis Tyrnaviensis − VEDA.

45. Zrníková, P. (2012). Charakteristiky textu a ich vplyv na porozumenie v čítaní (Dizertačná práca). Trnava: PdF TU.

Creative Commons License
Teoretické modely porozumenia textu a ich interpretácie v školskom vzdelávaní is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

230 x 157 mm
periodicity: 3 x per year
print price: 150 czk
ISSN: 1802-4637
E-ISSN: 2336-3177

Download