바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.32 No.2
Citation Share

덩이글 읽기 시 글의 난이도와 인지 능력 개인차의 상호작용 효과: 안구 운동 추적 연구

Interaction Effects of Text Difficulty and Individual Differences in Cognitive Abilities during Reading: An Eye-Tracking Study

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2020, v.32 no.2, pp.223-234
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.2.008
성은진 (광주과학기술원)
이윤형 (영남대학교)
최원일 (광주과학기술원)
성은진, 이윤형, & 최원일. (2020). 덩이글 읽기 시 글의 난이도와 인지 능력 개인차의 상호작용 효과: 안구 운동 추적 연구. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 32(2), 223-234, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.2.008
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

본 연구의 목적은 성인 독자들이 덩이글을 읽을 때, 글의 난이도와 독자들의 개인차 특성이 실시간 안구운동에 어떤 영향을 미치는지 알아보는 것이다. 실험 참여자들은 먼저 주어진 덩이글을 읽고 각 글의 핵심 주제를 묻는 질문에 답하였다. 그 후, 언어 능력, 단기 및 작업 기억 능력, 그리고 집행통제 능력을 측정할 수 있는 일련의 개인차 과제들을 수행하였다. 본 연구의 결과를 간단히 정리하면, 첫째, 글의 난이도는 읽기 속도에 부적인 영향을 주었다. 둘째, 독자들의 언어 및 인지 능력의 개인차가 글을 읽는 속도에 영향을 미쳤다. 즉, 언어능력이 높을수록, 단기 및 작업 기억의 용량이 클수록 글을 읽는 속도가 빨랐다. 그리고 글의 난이도와 개인차 변수 사이의 상호작용도 나타났는데, 언어 능력이 좋고, 작업 기억 용량이 클수록 읽기 속도에 대한 글의 난이도의 효과가 컸다 흥미롭게도 언어 능력이 좋고 작업 기억 용량이 큰 사람이 그렇지 않은 사람에 비해 쉬운 글을 읽는 속도가 훨씬 빨랐다. 하지만 이러한 능력들은 어려운 글을 읽는 속도에는 영향을 주지 않았다. 본 연구를 통해 얻은 결과와 관련된 이론적, 방법론적 쟁점들이 논의되었다.

keywords
읽기 이해, 안구 운동, 개인차, 글의 난이도, reading comprehension, eye movements, individual differences, text difficulty

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate how text difficulty and readers’ individual differences in cognitive abilities affect eye movements while reading. Participants were asked to read given texts and to respond a question for each text. They were also administrated a battery of individual-difference tasks measuring abilities of language, short-term/working memory capacity, and executive control. The main findings were as follows. First, text difficulty negatively influenced on reading speed. Second, individual differences in language and cognitive abilities affected reading speed. Specifically, higher language ability and bigger capacity of short-term/working memory were associated with faster reading speed. Finally, interaction effects between text difficulty and individual differences were emerged such that those who had better language skills and bigger working memory size read easy texts faster than those who had not did. However, such abilities did not have effects on reading speed of difficult texts. Theoretical and methodological issues on the current findings were discussed.

keywords
읽기 이해, 안구 운동, 개인차, 글의 난이도, reading comprehension, eye movements, individual differences, text difficulty

참고문헌

1.

Andrews, S. (2012). Individual differences in skilled visual word recognition and reading: The role of lexical quality: Sally Andrews. In Visual Word Recognition Volume 2 (pp. 163-184). Psychology Press.

2.

Ashby, J., Rayner, K., & Clifton, C. (2005). Eye movements of highly skilled and average readers: Differential effects of frequency and predictability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58, 1065-1086.

3.

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48.

4.

Boudewyn, M. A., Carter, C. S., & Swaab, T. Y. (2012). Cognitive control and discourse comprehension in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research and Treatment, 2012. 484502.

5.

Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 106-113.

6.

Choi, W., Lowder, M. W., Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (2015). Individual differences in the perceptual span during reading: Evidence from the moving window technique. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 2463-2475.

7.

Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422-433.

8.

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.

9.

Davis, F. B. (1968). Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 499-545.

10.

Engle, R. W., Conway, A. R. A., Tuholski, S. W., & Shisler, R. J. (1995). A resource account of inhibition. Psychological Science, 6, 122-125.

11.

Fedorenko, E. (2014). The role of domain-general cognitive control in language comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 335.

12.

Gilhooly, K. J., Logie, R. H., Wetherick, N. E., & Wynn, V. (1993). Working memory and strategies in syllogisticreasoning tasks. Memory & Cognition, 21, 115-124.

13.

Gordon, P. C., Moore, M., Choi, W., Hoedemaker, R. S., &Lowder, M. W. (in press). Individual differences in reading:Separable effects of reading experience and processing skill. Memory & Cognition.

14.

Hyönä, J., Lorch Jr, R. F., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text:Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 44-55.

15.

Jared, D., Levy, B. A., & Rayner, K. (1999). The role of phonology in the activation of word meanings during reading: Evidence from proofreading and eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 219-264.

16.

Kuperman, V., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2011). Effects of individual differences in verbal skills on eye-movement patterns during sentence reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 42-73.

17.

Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1-26.

18.

Lee, B. T., Kim, K. J., & Zoh, M. H. (1996). Working memory and language: Comprehension individual differences in reading span and language processing. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 8, 59-85.

19.

Lee, H., Seong, E., Choi, W., & Lowder, M. W. (2019). Development and assessment of the Korean Author Recognition Test. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 1837-1846.

20.

Lee, J. H., Kim, S. I., Kim, S. Y., & Yoo H. J. (1999). Individual differences in narrative comprehension: Differences in sentence integration and goal inference. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 11, 59-76.

21.

Lee, Y., & Kwon, Y. (2012) The effect of the individual differences in cognitive processes on paragraph comprehension: Structural equation modeling. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 23, 487-516.

22.

Luke, S. G. (2017). Evaluating significance in linear mixedeffects models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1494-1502.

23.

Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 267-296.

24.

Novick, J. M., Trueswell, J. C., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2005). Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 263-281.

25.

Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

26.

Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357-383.

27.

Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227-247). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

28.

R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.

29.

Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.

30.

Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 62, 1457-1506.

31.

Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slattery, T. J., & Ashby, J. (2006). Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 241-255.

32.

Satterthwaite, F. E. (1941). Synthesis of variance. Psychometrika, 6, 309-316.

33.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.

34.

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 402-433.

35.

Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Feeman, D. J. (1984). Intelligence, cognitive skills, and early reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 278-303.

36.

Thorndike, R. L. (1973). Reading as reasoning. Reading Research Quarterly, 9, 135-147.

37.

Vos, S. H., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Intersentential syntactic context effects on comprehension: The role of working memory. Cognitive Brain Research, 16, 111-122.

38.

Yoon, N. Y., & Koh, S. (2009). Eye-movements in reading easy and difficult texts. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 20, 291-307.

39.

Yuill, N., Oakhill, J. (1991). Children’s Problems in Text Comprehension, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책