“…Background knowledge provides the scaffolding needed to comprehend text (Greenberg, 2021; Kintsch, 1988). The idea of developing background information stems from schema theory, in which schemata (pieces, or snapshots, of information) come together to form a more whole, complete picture (Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983; Rumelhart, 1980).…”
College students are expected to comprehend, analyze, and respond to texts that are often challenging, complex, and specialized. While the importance and value of reading in higher education is hardly disputed, postsecondary literacy frequently revolves around the reinforcement of rudimentary skills. Furthermore, the demands of writing instruction often push reading instruction to the side, leaving students to navigate texts on their own. Challenging texts necessitate a degree of background knowledge, without which active and robust engagement cannot be expected. By scaffolding texts in a way that progressively builds background knowledge, instructors can prepare students for complex texts and subsequently, academic discourse. The authors propose a four‐tiered approach to reading instruction for adult learners that consists of four text types: foundational, expansion, opposing point‐of‐view, and expert’s point‐of‐view. While designed for integrated reading and writing courses, the proposed model has implications for faculty across the disciplines.
“…Background knowledge provides the scaffolding needed to comprehend text (Greenberg, 2021; Kintsch, 1988). The idea of developing background information stems from schema theory, in which schemata (pieces, or snapshots, of information) come together to form a more whole, complete picture (Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983; Rumelhart, 1980).…”
College students are expected to comprehend, analyze, and respond to texts that are often challenging, complex, and specialized. While the importance and value of reading in higher education is hardly disputed, postsecondary literacy frequently revolves around the reinforcement of rudimentary skills. Furthermore, the demands of writing instruction often push reading instruction to the side, leaving students to navigate texts on their own. Challenging texts necessitate a degree of background knowledge, without which active and robust engagement cannot be expected. By scaffolding texts in a way that progressively builds background knowledge, instructors can prepare students for complex texts and subsequently, academic discourse. The authors propose a four‐tiered approach to reading instruction for adult learners that consists of four text types: foundational, expansion, opposing point‐of‐view, and expert’s point‐of‐view. While designed for integrated reading and writing courses, the proposed model has implications for faculty across the disciplines.
“…This skills-based literacy is a prerequisite to the more complex "interactive HL" which allows participation and control of an individual's healthcare by applying information to changing situations [5]. HL is thus a broad construct involving a complex relationship between basic literacy, knowledge, and comprehension [6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chin and associates [7] have suggested that HL reflects the interplay of cognitive abilities (what they call "processing capacity") and background knowledge. As such, background knowledge of subject matter has been shown to be essential for literacy and especially comprehension of information, including information provided by clinicians during consultations, and to facilitate shared decision making [6,7]. Specific background knowledge of a topic has been shown to allow individuals to process information more quickly, recall infor-mation more readily and understand information at a deeper level [8].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Specific background knowledge of a topic has been shown to allow individuals to process information more quickly, recall infor-mation more readily and understand information at a deeper level [8]. Therefore, domain specific knowledge (and general knowledge) are essential for interactive HL [6]. In addition, a combination of general and specific knowledge enhances comprehension [9,10].…”
Health literacy (HL) is essential for men receiving urological treatment so that they can be involved in the shared decision making process. HL is supported by domain specific background knowledge which also informs cancer literacy and comprehension. Comprehension is in turn a determinant of HL. This study aimed to assess the level of HL among a group of men receiving urological treatment and to investigate if there were any correlations between the two different measures of HL, cancer literacy and comprehension, and prostate cancer knowledge. A survey was mailed to 200 men attending a urological clinic. The survey included: demographic questions, two validated tests of HL, (1) the Brief Health Literacy Score (BHLS) and (2) the Health Literacy Management Scale (HeLMS); a test of cancer comprehension; the Cancer Message Literacy Tests Reading (CMLT); and a prostate cancer knowledge test. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. Surveys from 72 respondents, average age of 65 years, were included in the final analysis. Based on the BHLS, 22%of respondents had inadequate HL and 50% of respondents had inadequate HL in one or more of the HeLMS domains. Overall, the study participants had relatively high cancer literacy, comprehensions, and knowledge. However, for men with inadequate HL, based on the BHLS and the HeLMS, there were strong correlations with poor cancer literacy, comprehension, and knowledge. Our study highlights that many men receiving urological treatment with inadequate HL, require additional support to access health information which they can understand and act on to be part of the shared decision-making process.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.