BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL NATURE OF TEXT COMPREHENSION IN TERMS OF TEXT LEARNING PROCESSES

Yıl 2013, Sayı: 11, 309 - 330, 31.01.2013
https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.486

Öz

Texts are important tools for learning. Thus, the attempt to make texts more understandable is a reflection of a purpose-function related necessity for learning from text. On the other hand, the idea of development and recovery of informative texts via corrective teaching materials is frequently explored by contemporary researchers. Thus, it is evident that more advanced proficiency is needed for the illustrated aspect of the structure of texts in the learning process and to make the efforts to prepare educational materials at more scientific ground. Therefore, in this study textual organization and a general theory of learning from texts are outlined and later language processing in working memory and related phenomena about learning from texts and individual differences including information about texts development, texts comprehension, and inferences from texts are discussed. The reason for this is the idea that working memory is responsible for not only recalling the stored information but also for storing the results of partial processes such as successive processes like language comprehension as explained in the related literature for modern memory theories. The other reason is the generalizations about the interaction between the processes of physical representation and pattern of a text manifested in accordance with these ideas. Additionally, not only the different procedures used to develop informative texts, at the same time, differences of these procedures including a learner’s view of world and process styles and measurement of text comprehension and the complex relations among them are the current and available information in the literature. As a result, due to the nature of factors, which affect a learner’s level of recalling and his understanding from text, this study aims to discuss this assumptions.

Kaynakça

  • Anderson, J.R., & Lebiere, C. (2003). The Newell test for a theory of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26: 587–640.
  • Britton, B.K., & Black, J.B. (1985) Understanding expository text: From structure to process and world knowledge. In B.K. Britton & J.B. Black (Eds.) Understanding expository text. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Cook, A.E., & Myers, J.L. (2004). Processing discourse roles in scripted narratives: The ınfluences of context world knowledge. Journal Of Memory And Language. (50): 268–288.
  • Craik, F.I.M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104: 2682
  • Çakır, H. (2005). Çeviri metinlerde konu sürekliliği. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Mütercim-Tercümanlık Anabilim Dalı İngilizce MütercimTercümanlık Programı Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
  • Ellis, H.C., Parente, F.J., & Walker, C.W. (1974). Coding and varied input versus repetition in human memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102: 2842
  • Eysenck, M.W. & Keane, M. T. (2003) Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook, 4th Edition. Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. (1983). Topic dependent effects in language processing. In G.B. Flores d’Arcais & R.J. Jarvella (Eds.), The process of language understanding (271-296). John Wiley.
  • Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. (1999). Incrementality in discourse understanding. In H. van Oostendorp & S.R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 3-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Garrod, S., & Terras, M. (2000). The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles: Bonding and resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42: 526-544.
  • Graesser, A.C., Woll, S.B., Kowalski, D.J., & Smith, D.A. (1980). Memory for typical and atypical actions in scripted activities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6: 503-515.
  • Greeno, J.G. (1989). Situations, mental models and generative knowledge. In: Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon, ed. D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky. Erlbaum. [aJRA].
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics,3: 199-244.
  • Haviland, S.E., & Clark, H.H. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13: 512-521.
  • Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). A Theory Of Reading: From Eye Fixations To Comprehension. Psychological Review, 87: 329-354.
  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99: 122–149.
  • Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85: 363–94.
  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A Construction– Integration Model. Psychological Review, 95: 163–182.
  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm For Cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Landauer, T.K., & Dumais, S.T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104 (2): 211–240.
  • Lave, J. (1988) Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge University Press. [aJRA]
  • MacDonald, M.C., Christiansen, M.H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992). and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, (Vol. 109), 1: 35–54.
  • Mannes, S.M., & Kintsch, W. (1987). Knowledge organization and text organization. Cognition and Instruction, 4(2): 91-115.
  • McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B. & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good text always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of under standing in learning from text. Cognition And Instruction, 14.
  • Meyer, B.J.F. (1985). Prose Analysis: Purpose, Procedures, and Problems: Parts I And Iı. In Britton, B. And Black, J.B., (Editors), Understanding Expository Text. Hillsdale, Nj: Lawrence Erlbaum, 11–64, 269–304.
  • Sanford, A.J., & Garrod, S.C. (1981). Understanding written language. Chichester: John Wiley.
  • Sanford, A.J., & Garrod, S.C. (1989). What, when, and how?: Questions of immediacy in anaphoric reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4: 2352
  • Sgall, P., & Hajicova, W.E. (1977). Focus on focus. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 28: 5-54.
  • Suchman, L.A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press. [aJRA]
  • Till, R.E., Mross, E.F., & Kintsch, W. (1988). Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context. Memory & Cognition, 16: 283-298. van Dıjk, T. A., Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies Of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
  • Waters, G.S., & Caplan, D. (1996). The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: Critique of Just and Carpenter (1992). Psychological Review, 103: 761–772. Weaver, C., & Kinscth,W. (1991). Expository text. In Rebecca Barr et al. (eds.). Handbook of Reading Research (Volume II), Publıshers: LEA.
  • Werth, P. (1999). Text worlds (textual explorations): Representing conceptual space in discourse. NY: Longman.
  • Zwaan, R.A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations of text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20: 920-933.
  • Zwaan, R.A., & Rapp, D.N. (2006). Discourse Comprehension. In Matthew J. Traxler & Morton A. Gernsbacher (Edited By), Handbook Of Psycholinguistics (2nd Edition). Elsevier.

METİNDEN ÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİ AÇISINDAN METNİ KAVRAMANIN PSİKOLOJİK DOĞASI

Yıl 2013, Sayı: 11, 309 - 330, 31.01.2013
https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.486

Öz

Metinler, öğrenme için önemli araçlardır. Bu açıdan, metinleri daha anlaşılır kılma kaygısı, aynı zamanda metinden öğrenme süreçleri açısından amaç-işlev bağlantılı bir ihtiyacın da doğal yansımasıdır. Diğer yandan öğretici nitelikteki metinlerin düzeltici stratejiler aracılığıyla bir gelişme ve iyileştirmeye konu edilme düşüncesi, günümüz araştırmacılarının sıklıkla üzerinde odaklandığı bir çalışma konusudur. Dolayısıyla, öğrenme süreçleri açısından yazılı metin/söylem yapısının sergilediği görünüm ve buna bağlı olarak da dil eğitiminde materyal hazırlama ve geliştirme çabalarının bilimsel bir temele kavuşturulabilmesi için daha ileri düzey uzmanlık bilgilerine gereksinim duyulduğu açıktır. Bu açılardan bu çalışmada, metin organizasyonu ve metinden öğrenme kuramlarının genel bir taslağı çıkartılmış ve sonraki bölümlerinde ise çalışan bellek kapasitesindeki dil işleme, metinden öğrenme ve bireysel farklılıklarla doğrudan ilişkili bazı olguları açıklamak için metin üretimi, metin kavraması ve metinden çıkarım süreçleri bağlamındaki kuramsal bilgilere yer verilmiştir. Bu yönlü bir seçime gidilmesinin gerekçesi ise çalışan hafızanın sadece depolanan bilgilerin geri getirilmesinden değil, ayrıca dil kavrama gibi ardışık işlemlerin kısmî sonuçlarının depolanması ve bilgi işlemenin diğer seviyelerinden de sorumlu olması gibi konuyla ilgili literatürde yer alan “modern bellek teorileri” kapsamındaki görüş ve düşüncelerdir. Diğer bir nedense bu görüş ve düşünceler ışığında sunulmuş metnin fiziksel sunumu (metin örüntüsü) ve metinden öğrenme süreçleri arasındaki etkileşime dair ortaya konulan genellemelerdir. Kaldı ki sadece öğretim amaçlı bir metni geliştirmek için farklı prosedürler bulunmasından değil, aynı zamanda bu prosedürlerin dünya bilgisi ve işlem stratejileri gibi öğrenen değişkenleri ile kavramanın ölçüldüğü görev arasında karmaşık etkileşimler bulunduğu doğrultusundaki bilgiler de söylem(metin) süreçlerine dair yapılandırılmış bir dizi genellemenin dayandığı güncel ve geçerli durumdaki bilgilerdir. Sonuçta, öğrenenin metinden anlama ve hatırlama seviyesini etkileyen faktörlerin doğası gereği bu özellikteki bir çalışma kurgulanmıştır.

Kaynakça

  • Anderson, J.R., & Lebiere, C. (2003). The Newell test for a theory of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26: 587–640.
  • Britton, B.K., & Black, J.B. (1985) Understanding expository text: From structure to process and world knowledge. In B.K. Britton & J.B. Black (Eds.) Understanding expository text. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Cook, A.E., & Myers, J.L. (2004). Processing discourse roles in scripted narratives: The ınfluences of context world knowledge. Journal Of Memory And Language. (50): 268–288.
  • Craik, F.I.M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104: 2682
  • Çakır, H. (2005). Çeviri metinlerde konu sürekliliği. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Mütercim-Tercümanlık Anabilim Dalı İngilizce MütercimTercümanlık Programı Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
  • Ellis, H.C., Parente, F.J., & Walker, C.W. (1974). Coding and varied input versus repetition in human memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102: 2842
  • Eysenck, M.W. & Keane, M. T. (2003) Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook, 4th Edition. Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. (1983). Topic dependent effects in language processing. In G.B. Flores d’Arcais & R.J. Jarvella (Eds.), The process of language understanding (271-296). John Wiley.
  • Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. (1999). Incrementality in discourse understanding. In H. van Oostendorp & S.R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 3-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Garrod, S., & Terras, M. (2000). The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles: Bonding and resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42: 526-544.
  • Graesser, A.C., Woll, S.B., Kowalski, D.J., & Smith, D.A. (1980). Memory for typical and atypical actions in scripted activities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6: 503-515.
  • Greeno, J.G. (1989). Situations, mental models and generative knowledge. In: Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon, ed. D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky. Erlbaum. [aJRA].
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics,3: 199-244.
  • Haviland, S.E., & Clark, H.H. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13: 512-521.
  • Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). A Theory Of Reading: From Eye Fixations To Comprehension. Psychological Review, 87: 329-354.
  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99: 122–149.
  • Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85: 363–94.
  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A Construction– Integration Model. Psychological Review, 95: 163–182.
  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm For Cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Landauer, T.K., & Dumais, S.T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104 (2): 211–240.
  • Lave, J. (1988) Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge University Press. [aJRA]
  • MacDonald, M.C., Christiansen, M.H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992). and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, (Vol. 109), 1: 35–54.
  • Mannes, S.M., & Kintsch, W. (1987). Knowledge organization and text organization. Cognition and Instruction, 4(2): 91-115.
  • McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B. & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good text always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of under standing in learning from text. Cognition And Instruction, 14.
  • Meyer, B.J.F. (1985). Prose Analysis: Purpose, Procedures, and Problems: Parts I And Iı. In Britton, B. And Black, J.B., (Editors), Understanding Expository Text. Hillsdale, Nj: Lawrence Erlbaum, 11–64, 269–304.
  • Sanford, A.J., & Garrod, S.C. (1981). Understanding written language. Chichester: John Wiley.
  • Sanford, A.J., & Garrod, S.C. (1989). What, when, and how?: Questions of immediacy in anaphoric reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4: 2352
  • Sgall, P., & Hajicova, W.E. (1977). Focus on focus. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 28: 5-54.
  • Suchman, L.A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press. [aJRA]
  • Till, R.E., Mross, E.F., & Kintsch, W. (1988). Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context. Memory & Cognition, 16: 283-298. van Dıjk, T. A., Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies Of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
  • Waters, G.S., & Caplan, D. (1996). The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: Critique of Just and Carpenter (1992). Psychological Review, 103: 761–772. Weaver, C., & Kinscth,W. (1991). Expository text. In Rebecca Barr et al. (eds.). Handbook of Reading Research (Volume II), Publıshers: LEA.
  • Werth, P. (1999). Text worlds (textual explorations): Representing conceptual space in discourse. NY: Longman.
  • Zwaan, R.A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations of text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20: 920-933.
  • Zwaan, R.A., & Rapp, D.N. (2006). Discourse Comprehension. In Matthew J. Traxler & Morton A. Gernsbacher (Edited By), Handbook Of Psycholinguistics (2nd Edition). Elsevier.
Toplam 34 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Ferhat Ensar Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Ocak 2013
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2013 Sayı: 11

Kaynak Göster

APA Ensar, F. (2013). METİNDEN ÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİ AÇISINDAN METNİ KAVRAMANIN PSİKOLOJİK DOĞASI. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi(11), 309-330. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.486