Differences in the Standards Used by College Students to Evaluate Their Comprehension of Expository Prose

Abstract

COLLEGE STUDENTS differing in verbal ability read and evaluated their comprehension of expository passages. Three different types of problems were embedded within the passages to provide opportunities for students to reveal the use of different standards of evaluation. Half of the subjects were informed that they should use three particular standards in order to identify the problems (lexical, external consistency, and internal consistency); the remaining subjects were not given specific information as to the standards they should use. All problems subjects identified, regardless of whether or not they were intentionally introduced, were classified as to the type of standard they reflected. The classification scheme consisted of the three targeted standards plus four others: syntax, propositional cohesiveness, structural cohesiveness, and informational completeness. Of particular concern were differences in the standards adopted by students receiving specific instructions and those receiving general instructions. Use of the lexical standard did not differ with instructional specificity, suggesting that students spontaneously evaluate their understanding of individual words. However, students receiving general instructions rarely used the external and internal consistency standards, suggesting these are not criteria students typically adopt. Instead, they commented frequently on the structural cohesiveness of the passages. Additionally, students with higher verbal ability exhibited more frequent and more varied standard use than those with lower verbal ability.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 95 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.