Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reading argumentative texts: comprehension and evaluation goals and outcomes

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study is situated at the interface between reading comprehension and critical thinking research. Its purpose was to examine the influence of reading goals and argument quality on the comprehension and critical evaluation of argumentative texts. Young adult readers read to comprehend or evaluate texts on two different controversial issues. Argument quality was varied across text versions on the basis of the hasty generalization fallacy. Text versions varied with respect to the quality of the arguments included, but not in terms of argument content. Measures of comprehension included main claim recall, overall recall and inferences in recall. Text evaluation was measured with a rating task. The sample’s familiarity with the text topics was low, and prior beliefs were relatively neutral. The results indicated that an evaluation goal had a consistent positive effect on main claim and text recall when compared to comprehension goal. Argument quality, however, had no main or interactive effects on text evaluation. The findings indicate that reading to evaluate argumentative text facilitates the representation of its content and critical argument elements, such as the claim it promotes. However, this representation is not sufficient for analyzing and critically evaluating the text’s argument line. The implications of these findings are discussed in relation to current efforts to promote critical-analytic thinking skills in the context of reading and writing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aggelopoulos, G. (2010a). Moral resistance. Newspaper Ta Nea (February 26, 2010). From http://democracy-rethymno.blogspot.com/2010/03/blog-post_03.html.

  • Aggelopoulos, G. (2010b). People come second. Newspaper Ta Nea (January 29, 2010). From http://www.tanea.gr/opinions/all-opinions/article/4557833/?iid=2.

  • Alexander, P. A. (2014). Thinking critically and analytically about critical-analytic thinking: An introduction. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 469–476. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9283-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., Kurby, C. A., Dandotkar, S., & Wolfe, C. R. (2008). I agreed with what? Memory for simple argument claims. Discourse Processes, 45, 52–84. doi:10.1080/01638530701739207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. A. (2003). Constructing representations of arguments. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 794–810. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00002-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., & Sperl, C. T. (2001). Profiling persuasion: The role of beliefs, knowledge, and interest in the processing of persuasive texts that vary by argument structure. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 269–301. doi:10.1080/10862960109548112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrnes, J. P., & Dunbar, K. N. (2014). The nature and development of critical-analytic thinking. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 477–493. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9284-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambliss, M. J. (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 778–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diakidoy, I. N., Christodoulou, S. A., Floros, G., Iordanou, K., & Kargopoulos, P. V. (2015). Forming a belief: The contribution of comprehension to the evaluation and persuasive impact of argumentative text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 300–315. doi:10.1111/bjep.12074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007). On the resolution of conflict in dual process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 13, 321–339. doi:10.1080/13546780601008825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. St. B. T. (2012). Questions and challenges for the new psychology of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 18, 5–31. doi:10.1080/13546783.2011.637674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glöckner, A., & Witteman, C. (2010). Beyond dual-process models: A categorisation of processes underlying intuitive judgement and decision making. Thinking & Reasoning, 16, 1–25. doi:10.1080/13546780903395748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 3–26). NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers’ evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning & Instruction, 34, 42–57. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2005). The effects of readers’ misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 235–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction—integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaczynski, P. A., Gordon, H. D., & Fauth, J. (1997). Goal-oriented critical reasoning and individual differences in critical reasoning biases. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 470–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ reasoning. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552. doi:10.1177/0956797611402512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, A. A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. A. (2009). Improving students’ evaluation of informal arguments. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 339–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, M., Britt, A. M., & Larson, A. A. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology, 25, 204–224. doi:10.1080/02702710490489908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linderholm, T., Virtue, S., Tzeng, Y., & van den Broek, P. (2004). Fluctuations in the availability of information during reading: Capturing cognitive processes using the landscape model. Discourse Processes, 37, 165–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, D. L., & Lea, R. B. (2005). Have we been searching for meaning in all the wrong places: Defining the “search after meaning” principle in comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 279–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macpherson, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 115–127. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297–384). Burlington: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Midgette, E., Haria, P., & MacArthur, C. (2008). The effects of content and audience awareness goals for revision on the persuasive essays of fifth- and eighth-grade students. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 131–151. doi:10.10007/s11145.007-9067-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. P., Holleran, A. T., Long, F. J., & Zeruth, A. J. (2005). Examining the complex roles of motivation and text medium in the persuasion process. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 418–438. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, Y. (2003). Go ahead, prove that God does not exist! On high school students’ ability to deal with fallacious arguments. Learning and Instruction, 13, 367–380. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00011-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, Y., & Weizman, E. (2003). The role of text representation in students’ ability to identify fallacious arguments. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 849–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Using argumentation Vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument-counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 549–565. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, E. J., & Cook, A. E. (2016). Coherence threshold and the continuity of processing: The RI-Val model of comprehension. Discourse Processes, 53, 326–338. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2015.1123341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo, L.-J. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 449–472. doi:10.1086/518623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricco, R. B. (2007). Individual differences in the analysis of informal reasoning fallacies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 459–484. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rips, L. J. (1998). Reasoning and conversation. Psychological Review, 105, 411–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking & Reasoning, 13, 225–247. doi:10.1080/13546780600780796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the failure of cognitive ability to predict myside and one-sided thinking biases. Thinking & Reasoning, 14, 129–167. doi:10.1080/13546780701679764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1081–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1999). Developments in argumentation theory. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 43–57). Amsterdam, NL: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 930–941. doi:10.1037/a0012842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J. (2005). A fair and balanced look at the news: What affects memory for controversial arguments? Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., & Myers, J. L. (2003). Availability and accessibility of information and causal inferences from scientific text. Discourse Processes, 36, 109–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeari, M., van den Broek, P., & Oudega, M. (2015). Processing and memory of central versus peripheral information as a function of reading goals: Evidence from eye-movements. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 1071–1097. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9561-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Philip Kargopoulos, George Floros, and Kalypso Iordanou for their insightful comments concerning argument fallacies, text cohesion, and argumentation skills.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Cyprus, 1 University Ave., 2109, Aglantzia, Cyprus

    Irene-Anna N. Diakidoy, Melina C. Ioannou & Stelios A. Christodoulou

Authors
  1. Irene-Anna N. Diakidoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melina C. Ioannou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stelios A. Christodoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irene-Anna N. Diakidoy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Diakidoy, IA.N., Ioannou, M.C. & Christodoulou, S.A. Reading argumentative texts: comprehension and evaluation goals and outcomes. Read Writ 30, 1869–1890 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9757-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9757-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation