Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

The Korean Society for Cognitive Science (한국인지과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of a Construal Level of Reading on Elementary School Students' Volume of Reading and Pleasure of Reading

독서에 대한 해석수준이 초등학생의 독서량과 독서의 재미에 미치는 효과

  • Received : 2019.11.25
  • Accepted : 2019.11.26
  • Published : 2019.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The objective of the current study is to explore psychological factors that can encourage elementary school students to read. Specifically, the current study verified the effect of manipulating the construal level, which is known to influence goal achievement, on the reading volume of the students. Two hundred elementary school students were separated into groups with high and low preferences for reading, as well as those with high and low reading volumes in general. Then, the study proceeded to categorize the students into the abstract construal-level group who were directed to think about why they have to read and the concrete construal-level group who were directed to think about how they should read. The participants were asked to read for two weeks, and their reading volume and reported pleasure of reading were measured. As a result, the study confirmed the main effect of the construal level, in that the group of students who were directed to have a concrete perspective about their reading objective by thinking about how to read had a higher reading volume than the group directed to have an abstract perspective about their reading objective. In addition, the group that generally had a lower-level preference for reading both read more and enjoyed reading more after it was directed to construe the reading activity concretely. However, the group that generally had a higher level of preference for reading maintained high reading volumes and high pleasure of reading regardless of the construal level. Furthermore, the group that generally read less both read more and enjoyed reading more after it was directed to construe reading concretely. However the group that generally read more also enjoyed reading more after it was directed to construe reading abstractly. The current study is significant in that it expands the discussion about the effect of construal level, which had been mainly a subject of behavioral economic research, into the field of educational instruction. The study also provides a practical implication for the types of perspective that are effective in motivating people with a higher or lower preference for certain tasks, as well as those with higher or lower levels of achievement for certain tasks.

본 연구는 초등학생의 독서를 장려할 수 있는 심리적 요인을 탐색하기 위해 이루어졌다. 구체적으로 목표 달성에 영향을 미친다고 알려져 있는 해석수준을 조작하여 독서량에 미치는 효과를 확인하였다. 이를 위해 본 연구는 초등학생 200명을 대상으로 연구를 수행하면서 평소 독서 선호도가 높은 집단과 낮은 집단, 그리고 평소 독서량이 많은 집단과 적은 집단으로 구분하였다. 또한 독서를 왜 해야 하는지에 대해 생각해보는 추상적 해석수준 집단과 독서를 어떻게 해야 하는지에 대해 생각해보는 구체적 해석수준 집단으로 구분한 후, 2주 동안의 독서량과 독서가 얼마나 재미있었는지를 측정하였다. 그 결과 해석수준의 주효과를 확인하였다. 즉 구체적 수준의 해석을 한 집단이 추상적 수준의 해석을 한 집단보다 독서량이 많았다. 또한 평소 독서 선호도가 낮은 집단은 독서에 대해 구체적 수준의 해석을 할 때 독서량과 독서에 대한 재미가 증진되지만, 평소 독서 선호도가 높은 집단은 해석수준에 관계없이 독서량이 많고, 독서에 대한 재미가 높은 상호작용이 관찰되었다. 아울러 평소 독서량이 적은 집단은 독서를 구체적 수준으로 해석할 때 독서량이 증가하고, 독서에 대한 재미가 증진되지만, 평소 독서량이 많은 집단은 독서를 추상적 수준으로 해석할 때 독서에 대한 재미가 증진되는 상호작용도 확인할 수 있었다. 본 연구는 행동경제학적 연구에서 다루어져 왔던 해석수준의 효과를 독서라는 교육적 지도 분야로 확장했다는 점에서 시사점을 가진다. 또한 평소 어떤 일을 선호하는 사람과 그렇지 않은 사람, 평소 어떤 일의 성과가 높은 사람과 낮은 사람에게 어떤 해석수준을 가지게 하는 것이 그 일에 대한 동기부여를 증진하는 것에 도움이 될 수 있는지 보여주었다는 측면에서 실무적인 시사점이 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김동일, 김희주, 김희은, 안성진 (2018). 난독증 및 읽기 부진 학생 대상 프로그램의 효과 분석. 아시아교육연구, 19(2), 403-427.
  2. 김상인 (2015). 난화기법이 난독증(dyslexia) 학생의 심리안정과 난독증 감소에 미치는 효과. 예술 심리치료연구, 11, 21-43.
  3. 김선희, 박현숙 (2003). 반구 자극 중재가 난독증 아동의 읽기 향상에 미치는 효과. 특수교육학연구, 38(2), 57-84.
  4. 김혜정 (2014). 국어교육 제재 선정과 독서 목록 구성에 대한 일고. 국어교육연구, 55.
  5. 백재은 (2015). 독서치료 독서목록에서의 카테고리와 치유서의 관계 분석 연구. 한국비블리아학회지, 26(2), 217-239. https://doi.org/10.14699/kbiblia.2015.26.2.217
  6. 변우열 (1996). 중고등학교 필독도서목록에 관한 연구. 한국도서관 정보학회지, 24, 243-274.
  7. 이홍재, 김미라, 남기춘 (1998). 난독증의 이해: 난독증의 분류와 평가. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 17(1), 1-24.
  8. 한윤옥 (2004). 독서치료를 위한 상황별 독서목록의 기초적 요건에 관한 연구 II-사례분석을 통한 상황설정 및 분류체계 예시. 한국문헌정보학회지, 38(3), 249-275. https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2004.38.3.249
  9. Baron, N. S. (2017). Reading in a digital age. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(2), 15-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717734184
  10. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
  11. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2011). Matthew effects in young readers: Reading comprehension and reading experience aid vocabulary development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(5), 431-443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411410042
  12. Carver, R. P. (1990). Intelligence and reading ability in Grades 2-12. Intelligence, 14(4), 449-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(05)80014-5
  13. Chomsky, C. (1972). Stages in language development and reading exposure. Harvard Educational Review, 42(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.42.1.h78l676h28331480
  14. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22, 8-17.
  15. de Jonge, P., & de Jong, P. F. (1996). Working memory, intelligence and reading ability in children. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(6), 1007-1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00161-4
  16. Dhar, R., & Kim, E. Y. (2007). Seeing the forest or the trees: Implications of construal level theory for consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 96-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70014-1
  17. Fjortoft, N., Gettig, J., & Verdone, M. (2018). Smartphones, memory, and pharmacy education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 82(3), 7054-7054. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7054
  18. Fujita, K. (2008). Seeing the forest beyond the trees: A construal-level approach to self-control. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1475-1496. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00118.x
  19. Fujita, K., Henderson, M. D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17(4), 278-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01698.x
  20. Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 351-367. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.351
  21. Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.103
  22. Hansen, J., & Trope, Y. (2013). When time flies: How abstract and concrete mental construal affect the perception of time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 336-347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029283
  23. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. American Educator, 27(1), 4-9.
  24. Hartanto, A., & Yang, H. (2016). Is the smartphone a smart choice? The effect of smartphone separation on executive functions. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 329-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.002
  25. Hirsch Jr, E. D., & Moats, L. C. (2001). Overcoming the language gap. American Educator, 25(2), 4-9.
  26. Johnson, J., Fabian, V., & Pascual-Leone, J. (1989). Quantitative hardware stages that constrain language development. Human Development, 32(5), 245-271. https://doi.org/10.1159/000276477
  27. Katzir, T., Kim, Y., Wolf, M., O’Brien, B., Kennedy, B., Lovett, M., & Morris, R. (2006). Reading fluency: The whole is more than the parts. Annals of dyslexia, 56(1), 51-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-006-0003-5
  28. Kirby, J. R., Desrochers, A., Roth, L., & Lai, S. S. V. (2008). Longitudinal predictors of word reading development. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(2), 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.2.103
  29. Lee, L., & Ariely, D. (2006). Shopping goals, goal concreteness, and conditional promotions. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 60-70. https://doi.org/10.1086/504136
  30. Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Bowman, L. L. (2013). Use of instant messaging predicts self-report but not performance measures of inattention, impulsiveness, and distractibility. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(12), 898-903. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0504
  31. Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 523-534. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00535-8
  32. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5
  33. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., McCrea, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 143-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.009
  34. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal level theory and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 113-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70017-7
  35. Loh, K. K., & Kanai, R. (2014). Higher media multi-tasking activity is associated with smaller gray-matter density in the anterior cingulate cortex. Plos one, 9(9), e106698-e106698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106698
  36. McCardle, P., Cooper, J. A., Houle, G. R., Karp, N., & Paul-Brown, D. (2001). Emergent and early literacy: Current status and research directions. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16(4), 183-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.t01-1-00018
  37. McCrea, S. M., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Sherman, S. J. (2008). Construal level and procrastination. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1308-1314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02240.x
  38. Moisala, M., Salmela, V., Hietajarvi, L., Salo, E., Carlson, S., Salonen, O., ... & Alho, K. (2016). Media multitasking is associated with distractibility and increased prefrontal activity in adolescents and young adults. NeuroImage, 134, 113-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.011
  39. Muter, V., & Diethelm, K. (2001). The contribution of phonological skills and letter knowledge to early reading development in a multilingual population. Language learning, 51(2), 187-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00153
  40. Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, Rimes, Vocabulary, and Grammatical Skills as Foundations of Early Reading Development: Evidence From a Longitudinal Study. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 665-681. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.665
  41. Pfost, M., Dorfler, T., & Artelt, C. (2012). Reading competence development of poor readers in a German elementary school sample: An empirical examination of the Matthew effect model. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(4), 411-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01478.x
  42. Rabinovich, A., Morton, T. A., Postmes, T., & Verplanken, B. (2009). Think global, act local: The effect of goal and mindset specificity on willingness to donate to an environmental organization. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 391-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.004
  43. Ritchie, S. J., & Bates, T. C. (2013). Enduring links from childhood mathematics and reading achievement to adult socioeconomic status. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1301-1308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612466268
  44. Scarborough, H. S., Dobrich, W., & Hager, M. (1991). Preschool literacy experience and later reading achievement. Journal of learning Disabilities, 24(8), 508-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949102400811
  45. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and individual differences, 25(2), 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00001-4
  46. Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive Psychology Progress: Empirical Validation of Interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410-421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410
  47. Smith, C., Constantino, R., & Krashen, S. (1997). Differences in print environment for children in Beverly Hills, Compton and Watts. Emergency Librarian, 24(4), 8-9.
  48. Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Journal of Education, 189(1-2), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001-204
  49. Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Feeman, D. J. (1984). Intelligence, cognitive skills, and early reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(3), 278-303. https://doi.org/10.2307/747822
  50. Todorov, A., Goren, A., & Trope, Y. (2007). Probability as a psychological distance: Construal and preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 473-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.04.002
  51. Tressoldi, P. E., Stella, G., & Faggella, M. (2001). The development of reading speed in Italians with dyslexia: A longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5), 414-417. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400503
  52. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
  53. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of consumer psychology, 17(2), 83-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X
  54. Ulkumen, G., & Cheema, A. (2011). Framing goals to influence personal savings: The role of specificity and construal level. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(6), 958-969. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.09.0516
  55. Uncapher, M. R., & Wagner, A. D. (2018). Minds and brains of media multitaskers: Current findings and future directions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(40), 9889-9896. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611612115
  56. Vaessen, A., & Blomert, L. (2010). Long-term cognitive dynamics of fluent reading development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105(3), 213-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.005
  57. Verhoeven, L., van Leeuwe, J., & Vermeer, A. (2011). Vocabulary growth and reading development across the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(1), 8-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.536125
  58. Wakslak, C., & Trope, Y. (2009). The effect of construal level on subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science, 20(1), 52-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02250.x
  59. Wilmer, H. H., Sherman, L. E., & Chein, J. M. (2017). Smartphones and cognition: A review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cognitive functioning. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 605. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00605
  60. Wise, J. C., Sevcik, R. A., Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., & Wolf, M. (2007). The relationship among receptive and expressive vocabulary, listening comprehension, pre-reading skills, word identification skills, and reading comprehension by children with reading abilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 1093-1109. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/076)
  61. Wise, J. C., Sevcik, R. A., Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., Wolf, M., Kuhn, M., . . . Schwanenflugel, P. (2010). The relationship between different measures of oral reading fluency and reading comprehension in second-grade students who evidence different oral reading fluency difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(3), 340-348. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0093)
  62. Wolf, M. (1984). Naming, reading, and the dyslexias: A longitudinal overview. Annals of dyslexia, 34(1), 87-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02663615
  63. Wolf, M., & Gow, D. (1986). A longitudinal investigation of gender differences in language and reading development. First language, 6(17), 81-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/014272378600601701
  64. Wolf, M., & Stoodley, C. J. (2008). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.