Reading argumentative texts: comprehension and evaluation goals and outcomes

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.